Madras High Court
S.M. Muhammad Ibrahim vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 22 February, 1956
Equivalent citations: (1956)2MLJ23, AIR 1956 MADRAS 626, 1968 MADLW 372 1956 2 MADLJ23, 1956 2 MADLJ23
ORDER Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.
1. I agree with the Office Note. Where a petitioner desires to question the validity or legality of an order, he is entitled to apply for an appropriate writ but this right of his flows from the order affecting him. The fact that similar orders are passed in the case of other individuals also be it by the same officer or authority, does not mean that the injury caused is a common or class injury so as to justify a single petition with all the individuals similarly affected joining in it as petitioners. The provision in Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, seeks to obviate the inconveniences arising out of a multiplicity of parties - but neither the rule nor its principle can be extended to Writ Petitions. Again the fact that the relief prayed for by the several petitioners each of whose individual right is alleged to have been invaded improperly by the impugned order is grounded on a common objection, the invalidity of the legislation or the rule or some order interpreting or enforcing the statute or the rule does not also afford any basis for a joint Writ Petition by several petitioners aggrieved by similar orders. Each of them has to file independent petitions, paying separate Court-fee on each, with separate vakalat, etc. In these cases I have directed the petitioners to amend the petitions so as to retain only one petitioner on the record and as this has been done I have admitted the Writ Petitions.