9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (4) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. In W.P. No. 140 of 1967 a preliminary objection was raised to the effect that because the proceedings against different tenants were commenced by separate applications before the Tenancy Deputy Tahsildar, Kavali, the tenants petitioners could not file a single writ petition though their cases were tried together and disposed of by a common order by the Tenancy Deputy Tahsildar and then separate Appeals against the common were order also disposed of by a common order by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Separate writ petitions should have been filed and the writ petition, as now filed was not maintainable, One of the tenants also filed a revision petition to this Court against the order of the Revenues Divisional Officer (C.R.P. 46 of 1966). After a discussion of all the cases, cited before him, our learned brother Madhav Reddy, J., in W.P. No. 140 of 1967 and C.R.P. No. 46 of 1967, held that- In hearing a single writ petition, in such a case as this, I do not think that there in anything in the nature and scope of the writ proceedings which necessitates the filing of separate writ petition against each of the respondents. 3. After expressing the above view, the learned Judge, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f arises out of the same act or transaction and if separate suits were brought common question of fact or law would arise. The answer to this question depends on the answer that is to be given to the question whether writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution are civil proceedings and if so whether all the provisions of the C.P.C. are applicable to such proceedings. 6. It is, therefore, necessary, to know the nature of the writ proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The question as to the nature of the writ proceedings and the applicability of the provisions of the C.P.C. to the writ proceedings has come up for consideration before this Court in the following cases the first one is in re Atmakuri Gopalakrishna Rao A.I.R. 1957 A.P. 88, 1957 : (1) An. W.R. 130. In that case 10 rise mill owners separately applied to the Collector for renewal of their individual licences. The Collector called upon each of them to pay an additional deposit of ₹ 300, Aggrieved by those orders the rice mill owners in a joint writ petition filed by them before the High Court, questioned the legality of the orders passed by the Collector and prayed for the issue of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in Annam Adinarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1957) 2 AWR 345. In that case two Government servants, who were dismissed from service pursuant to the instructions given by the Government to the Collector, jointly filed a single writ petition for quashing the common order of termination of their service. The Division Bench of this Court consisting of Subba Rao, C.J. (as he then was) and Srinivasachary, J., held that the petitioners were aggrieved by a single act of the Collector and a common question of law and fact arose and, therefore, a single application was maintainable. 11. The learned Judges further observed that: A proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a proceeding in Civil Court of jurisdiction. While accepting the principles laid down by Komarayya, J., in in re Atmakurt Gopalakrishna Rao A.I.R. 1957 A.P. 88, the Division Bench held that the same principles could be worked out within the frame work of the relevant provisions of C.P.C. In regard to the maintainability of a single petition by several petitioners, the Division Bench held that if the claim made by all the petitioners was the same one consolidated application was maintainable. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate (1960) IILLJ 373 All, Jaswant Sugar Mill Ltd. v. Authority Under the Payment of Wages Act AIR 1962 All 77, Shiv Singh and Ors. v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal AIR 1969 All 14, Qurabali v. Government of Rajasthan, , Chaman Motor Service v. The Appellate Authority of State Transport Authority A.I.R. 1957 Nag. 102, Khem Karn v. State of U.P. AIR 1966 All 255 and Chandrabhan Gasain v. State of Orissa 9 S.C. Notes. 104. 15. Thus on principle and authority one single writ petition can be filed (1) where the right to relief arises from the same Act or transaction involving a common question of law or fact, or (2) where, though the right to relief claimed does not arise from the same Act or transaction the petitioners, are jointly interested in the cause of action. But those who have got separate and distinct rights and similar orders have been passed against them cannot file a single writ petition. 16. It would not be out of place to say that the legal position summarised by Subbarao, C.J. in Annam Adinarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1957 (II) An. W.R. 345, is in the opinion of the learned author H; M. Seervai on Constitutional Law of India, the correct exposition of la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Calcutta High Court held that- Where mandamus is sought by several rate papers having different causes of action to compel a municipality to supply scheduled quantity of water for domestic purposes it would be sufficient to follow analogously the provisions of Order 1 Civil Procedure Code. 19. Those observations made by the learned Judge indicate that when the cause of action is one and not different causes of action, then there would be no objection to the filing of a single writ petition. 20. In Khurlawala Buckles Manufacturing Co. v. Sales Tax Commissioner AIR 1965 All 517, it was held that- The provisions of Civil Procedure Code do not govern a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution and that a petition for certiorari for the quashing of two assessment orders pertaining to two assessment years, or one petition for quashing of two assessment orders under two different taxing statutes, even though the assessee is the same and the assessing authority is the same, cannot be entertained. These observations made by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court cannot be said to be correct, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandra Bhan Gasain v. State o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Bombay High Court regulating the procedure for the filing of writs. It has already been stated above, that no rules have been framed by our High Court in this behalf. Neither in Dasu Ram v. Union of India (supra), nor in Revenue Patwaris Union v. State of Punjab (supra), do we find a discussion on this question, which throws sufficient light, one way or the other. We are, therefore, unable to rely upon those rulings. 23. The Mysore High Court in Mount Corporation v. Director of Industries and Commerce A.I.R. 1965 Mys. 143 expressed its full agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in Management of Rain Bow Dyeing Factory v. Industrial Tribunal AIR 1959 Mad 137. The view taken by the Madras High Court in that case is- Persons having common and joint interest in the subject-matter of controversy may be joined as petitioners in one writ petition while others having separate and distinct rights cannot. From the above discussion it follows that there is a long line of authorities which shows that a single writ petition can be filed by several petitioners if the matter arises out of same Act or transaction involving common question of law or fact. Even in cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
