TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, arbitrary and an abuse of authority violative of the rights of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 301 of the Constitution of India. 2. Several such writ petitions in which varying number of traders have joined to file a single writ petition, are now before us. When these matters came up before our learned brother P. A. Choudary, J. for admission, having regards to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mota Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR1981SC484 , he was prima facie of the view that notwithstanding that the petitioners can join in filing one writ petition, separate court-fee has to be paid valued on the basis of the cause of action. It was argued for the petitioners before him, as it is now argued before us, that when a single writ petition is maintainable, only one set of Court-fee would be payable. As these questions would occur almost every day in the Court, it was thought proper to have an authoritative pronouncement by a Division Bench, only a few facts necessary to appreciate the contentions which necessitated the filing of these writ petitions may be noticed. 3. The question whether under.; Clause 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mill, whether by the miller/dealer or by the purchaser. I had also stated that the authorities under the order are entitled to check and satisfy themselves at any time or at any stage that a person is not violating any of the provisions of the order. It a therefore, dear that if a dealer is found to be in possession of rice, or, is found to be transporting the rice and if the appropriate authority calls upon him to do so, it is his duty to satisfy the officer that his possession, or transport of the rice, is not in violation of any of the provisions of the Order which means, that he must prove that he is not a miller of dealer liable to deliver the levy rice and that he is a second or subsequent purchaser. This he can do by producing the copies of the permit or permits, as the case may be, issued under Rule 4 (1) of the Order or by other means open to him. On proof that he is a second or subsequent purchaser of rice sold under permit under Rule 4 (1), he cannot be asked to or found fault with, for not delivering the levy rice. I must make it clear that the above clarification does not affect what I have stated to be the meaning and purport of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 . It is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he movement and insisting upon production of permits. It is not their case that all the petitioners, who joined in filing a single writ petition, were transporting rice and broken rice jointly and all or any of the respondents at any particular point stopped such movement. Now is it their case that all or any of them were simultaneously transporting levy free rice or broken rice and they were stopped by any particular respondent or a particular officer at any single check post ? Their case is that each one of them apprehends that if they transport rice and broken rice, they would be stopped at different check posts although the rice and broken rice which they are transporting is the subject of second or subsequent sale for which no permit is necessary and in respect of which no permit can be issued under the provisions of the order 1967 . In other words, what they apprehend is that the stock of each one of them is likely to be stopped by different check post officers at different places and at different times. It is this apprehension that has prompted these writ petitioners. Even if in one or two cases, there was such stoppage at different points by different persons on different d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e chargeable with the aggregate amount of the fees that would be chargeable on the plaints under this Act if separate suits were instituted in respect of the several causes of action. Provided that, where the causes of action in respect of reliefs claimed alternatively against the same person arise out of the same transaction, the plaint shall be chargeable only with the highest of the fees chargeable on them. (b) Nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to affect any power conferred upon a Court by Rule 6 of Order II in the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure (Central Act V of 1908). (4) The provisions of this section shall apply mutatis mutandis to memorandum of appeals, applications, petitions and written statements. The provisions of Section 6, though refer to suits, in view of sub-section (4) they apply mutatis mutandis to the writ petitions as well. Hence in determining the court-fee payable on a writ petition, what has to be considered is whether the cause of action that has arisen for the several persons that have joined in filing a single writ petition is distinct and different and whether they could be allowed to join in filing a singl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lleged to exist in such persons whether jointly, severally or in the alternative and if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law and fact would arise. 10. It has, therefore, to be seen whether the right to relief with respect to each of the petitioners arises out of the same act or series of acts and whether the right to relief exists jointly, severally or in the alternative and if such persons brought separate suits, any common questions of law or fact would arise. The position of law as to the requirement of a permit in respect of second and subsequent sales of rice or broken, rice has already been declared by this Court and the question of fact whether any of the respondents or their subordinates have insisted upon the production of a permit in respect of such sales would arise with respect to each of the individual petitioners separately and the facts relating to each of the petitioners would be different. The act of obstructing the movement of rice and broken rice and the act of insisting upon the production of a permit contrary to the declaration of law made by this Court would be by different individuals at different times and at different places. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the number of persons that may join in a suit based on two or more distinct and different causes of action for separate reliefs. If a single suit or petition could be filed in respect of two or more distinct and different causes of action as in the case of the petitioners and similar reliefs could be sought, even then the aggregate amount of court-fees that would be payable by each one of them would be payable even if they were to join in filing a single suit or petition. 13. In Mota Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR1981SC484 (supra) a similar question came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in relation to the liability of the truck pliers on highway to pay tax individually. Though each one of the truck owners raised the same contention and questioned their individual liability to pay tax, when they joined in filing a single writ petition, the Supreme Court observed (at P. 485): Having regard to the nature of these cases where every owner of a truck plying his truck for transport of goods has a liability to pay tax impugned in the petition, each one has his own independent cause of action. So too in this case each one of the petitioners, whose ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was considered and it was held that each one of them should pay a separate set of court-fee. 14. However, from what is stated by the petitioners and analysed above, there can be little doubt that the cause of action for each of the petitioners, who have joined in filing a single writ petition, is a separate and distinct cause of action peculiar to himself with reference to the person who has stopped the vehicle, transporting the goods, the place where he has stopped and the reason for which he has stopped. As early as in Annam Adinarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR1958AP16 a somewhat similar question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. Subba Rao, C. J. (as he then was) speaking for the Bench held (at p. 19 of AIR): The provisions of Orders 1 and 1 can be invoked as far as they can be made applicable to the proceedings in a writ application undo Article 226. Ordinarily, two or more persona cannot join in a single petition to enforce separate claims. But where the right of relief arises from the same act or transaction and there is a common question of law as fact or where, though the right to relief claimed does not arise from the same act or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings' Indeed, little Indians in large numbers seeking remedies in Courts through collective proceedings, instead of being driven to an expensive plurality of litigations, is an affirmation of participative justice in our democracy. We have no hesitation in holding that the narrow concept of 'cause of action' and 'person aggrieved and individual litigation is becoming obsolescent in some jurisdictions. It must fairly be stated that the learned Attorney General has taken no abjection to a non-recognised association maintaining the writ petitions. It must be immediately pointed out that the observations therein were in relation to the maintainability of the petition by an unrecognised association and not regarding the court-fee payable by several persons who have chosen to join in filing a single writ petition. Maintainability of the petition is one thing and liability to pay court-fee is another. It is in that context that the observations were made with respect to the cause of action and not in the content of the liability to pay court-lee with reference to the provisions of the Court-fees Act and the relief claimed by each of the petitioners on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
