9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (6) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of India for quashing the order terminating their services. On the answer to the question whether the petitioners could file one petition in the aforesaid circumstances depends the question of court-fee for, if one petition is not maintainable, they will have to file separate petitions involving the payment of separate court-fee. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code apply to a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and that as they are questioning the validity of a single order, they could file one application under Order 1 Rule 1 C. P. C. The Government Pleader argues that a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a civil proceeding and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be invoked and therefore, the petitioners should follow the practice obtaining in England where-from the jurisdiction to issue such writs is borrowed and under the procedure, in similar circumstances a common petition is not maintainable. 4. The first question is whether proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are civil proceedings within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code. Art ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction. It is not a power which is an appendage only to the subject matter dealt with under Article 225. That the High Court has territorial jurisdiction over the entire State within which it is situated is also clear from the provisions of Article 227. These observations, on which some reliance was placed by the learned Government Pleader do not say anything more than recognising the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench did not purport to lay down, nor was any such argument advanced, that a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution was not a civil proceeding. That question directly arose before another Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Ryots of Garabandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedl ILR 1938 Mad. 816: (AIR 1938 Mad 722) (B). The learned Judges Sir Lionel Leach C. J. and Madhavan Nair J. held that an order refusing the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Board of Revenue was one passed in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 109 C. P. C, and was subject to the right of appeal to the Privy Council from the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative where if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise. Order 2 Rule 3:-- Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs haying causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such a cause of action in the same suit. A combined reading of these rules may be stated thus: The result is that where there are two or more plaintiffs and two or more causes of action, they may be joined in one suit if the right to the relief and the causes of action arise from the same act or transaction and that there is a common question of law or fact though they may not all be jointly interested in all the causes of action. But if the right to the relief claimed does not arise from the same act or transaction or if there is no common question of law or fact, the plaintiffs cannot ail join in one suit unless they are jointly interested in the causes of action as provided by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e principle laid down in American jurisprudence Vol. 35, page 81, paragraph 33 is that if it is found that even one of the applicants is disentitled to relief the whole application must fail. This only illustrates that the filing of a separate and independent petition is a rule which knows of few exceptions and the principles embodied in Order 1 C. P. C. cannot be extended to writ petitions. While we accept the principles laid down by the learned Judge, we think the same principles could be worked out within the framework of the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. In that case, there were separate orders of the Collector inflicting distinct injuries on the petitioners and therefore, the right to relief and the causes of action of the petitioners did not arise from the same transaction nor were they jointly interested in the causes of action. 7. Rajagopala Ayyengar J. in Muhammad Ibrahim v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Puddukottai 1956 2 Mad LJ 23: (AIR 1956 Mad 626) (F), held that the fact that similar orders were passed in the case of other individuals also by the same authority or officer does not mean that the injury caused is a common or class injury so a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ petition. It is not necessary to express our opinion in this case but the conclusion may be justified on the ground that the said procedure is inappropriate to writ petitions. There is no scope for invoking order 1 Rule 1 or order 2 Rule 3 C. P. C. as in that case the right to relief of the various petitioners did not arise from the same ads or transactions or the petitioners were not jointly interested in the cause of action. 8. In United Motors (India) Ltd v. State of Bombay 1953 4 STC 10 ), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court considered the maintainability of one application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India toy different persons. There, the petitioners six off whom were corporations and the seventh a firm, carried on the business of buying and selling motor Cars on a large scale. They filed one petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1952, on the ground that the Legislature was not competent to enact it as it contravened Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Chagla C. J. after quoting the following passage from Halsbury's laws of England Vol. IX page 783 paragraph 1325: Two or more person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
