9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (7) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders passed under two Acts was maintainable or not. It may be mentioned that the court-fee payable on a petition for certiorari is ₹ 50/- and that the court-fee paid on the petition by the petitioner is ₹ 50/-; it has not paid court-fee of ₹ 200/- as it would have paid if it had filed separate petitions for certiorari for the quashing of each of the assessment orders. Our learned brother considering the matter to be of importance has referred the following question to a Bench for its decision:-- Whether more than one assessment order can be challenged by means of a single writ petition under Article 228 of the Constitution; and in the circumstances of this case whether in respect of the Sales Tax assessments for the year 1960-61 and 1901-62 a single writ petition can be filed in respect of the assessments both under the U. P. Sales Tax and under the Central Sales Tax Act where the points of challenge are the same? 2. When certiorari is sought for the quashing of two or more assessment orders the following are the possible combinations.--(1) the assessment orders may relate to the same assesses and the same taxing statute but relate to different assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erns a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution or not and our answer is no. No statutory authority other than Section 141 or the Code of Civil Procedure was cited in support of the contention that the Code applies. What is laid down in Section 141 is that the procedure laid down in the Code in regard to suits is to be followed, so far as it can be, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. A High Court when exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be said to be a Court of civil jurisdiction. There is considerable conflict about the nature of the jurisdiction conferred upon a High Court under Article 226; some High Courts take the view that it is Civil jurisdiction, some take it to be civil or criminal according to the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the inferior Court or tribunal or authority passing the impugned order and others take the view that it is neither civil nor criminal. It has been held by the Supreme Court that it is not ordinary jurisdiction and is extraordinary jurisdiction; this observation may mean that it is neither civil nor criminal. Ordinary jurisdiction is capable of being divided into civil and cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Code relating to suits will apply in proceedings under Article 226. 6. This Court when making rules governing the procedure in petitions under Article 228 has refrained from making the provisions of the Code applicable. Certain rules made by it such as Rules 8 and 9 of the Chapter XXII show that the provisions of the Code were not intended to be applicable; otherwise they would not have been made at all. It is true that this Court has made very few rules and has not made rules governing so many situations that are likely to arise when exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 but it does not follow that the provisions of the Code were intended to be applicable. The Court has not made rules governing all situations because it has left the matter at the discretion of the Judges. It was pointed out to us that the provisions of the Code have been applied by this Court in matters concerning substitution and review but that is not on the ground that these matters are governed by the provisions in the Code. This Court has applied the analogy or the principle of the provisions relating to substitution and review contained in the Code in exercise of its discretion. In Uma Shankar v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions were insisted upon, the State would have recovered in the form of court-fee ₹ 200/-whereas the petitioner has paid only ₹ 50/-. Allowing one petition to be filed for impugning several distinct orders (e. g. orders passed against different assessees or in respect of different assessment years or (under different taxing statutes) would result in a loss of revenue to the State and there is no reason why we should permit this. We may go even further and say that we have not been given the power to permit loss to the State revenue and if this is correct, it follows that we have not the power to permit one petition for impugning several distinct orders. The number of suits in which benefit can be taken of the provisions of Order II Rule 3 is vary small but the number of petitions under Article 226 in which its benefit can be taken will be very large. In a petition under Article 226 the opposite party generally is the State Government and if a petitioner or petitioners were allowed the benefit of Order II Rule 3 all kinds of different orders under different Acts having no connection whatever with one another would be liable to be joined in one petition causing confusio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
