The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition filed in a representative capacity must obtain leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, and failure to do so renders the petition not maintainable.

( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition of 1988. In para 1 thereof, it is averred that it is filed by the individual petitioner in a representative capacity. It is not disputed that no application for leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil procedure Code was made, no leave was obtained and no publication in this behalf was effected. Learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, submits that the petition in a representative capacity is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original petitioner has been substituted by another petitioner pursuant to an order of this Court, that the petition has been admitted and that, therefore, it must be proceeded with as being a petition in a representative capacity.

( 2 ) IT is for the petitioner to make an application under Order 1 Rule 8. It is not for the court to see at the time of admitting the petition whether it is in a representative capacity or otherwise. Therefore, this writ petition in a representative capacity is not maintainable. It can be proceeded with insofar as the individual substituted petitioner is concerned.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that it cannot be proceeded with in an individual capacity and that, in the circumstances, it should be adjourned to enable the petitioner to take steps under Order 1 Rule 8.

( 4 ) THIS is a petition of 1988 and the application under Order 1 Rule 8 should have been made immediately after it was filed. The application is refused.

( 5 ) THE writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.