Several traders cannot join in filing a single writ petition and even if they are allowed to join, they would be liable to pay court-fee as if each of them has filed a separate writ petition.

( 1 ) SEVERAL traders, who are all registered dealers in rice and broken rice, have joined in filing a single writ petition seeking a writ, of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to interdict the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary (Civil Supplies Department) the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Andhra Pradesh, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh and the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad (respondent 1 to 4 respectively) from interfering with the free movement of rice and broken rice of the petitioners in their second and subsequent sales both either by rail or road, within the State and export to other States of the Country, declaring the action of the respondents in insisting on production of permits, as illegal and without jurisdiction, arbitrary and an abuse of authority violative of the rights of the petitioners under Article 19 (1) (g) and Article 301 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) SEVERAL such writ petitions in which varying number of traders have joined to file a single writ petition, are now before us. When these matters came up before our learned brother P. A. Choudary, J. for admission, having regards to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mota Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 484, he was prima facie of the view that notwithstanding that the petitioners can join in filing one writ petition, separate court-fee has to be paid valued on the basis of the cause of action. It was argued for the petitioners before him, as it is now argued before us, that when a single writ petition is maintainable, only one set of Court-fee would be payable. As these questions would occur almost every day in the Court, it was thought proper to have an authoritative pronouncement by a Division Bench, only a few facts necessary to appreciate the contentions which necessitated the filing of these writ petitions may be noticed.

( 3 ) THE question whether under. ; Clause 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale Order, 1967 the authorities concerned were entitled to insist upon permits for the second and sub-quent sales of levy free rice came up for con- sideration before a learned single Judge of this Court in several writ petitions W. P No. 3637/80 and batch which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 31-12-1980 (reported in (1981) 1 ALT 135 ). The learned Judge held as follows:--"the result of the above discussion is: (i) the first sale of levy-free rice whether by a miller or dealer shall have to be under a permit issued under Clause 4 (1) of the 1967 order. It does not matter whether such rice is stocked in a rice mill, or elsewhere; (ii) the permit under Sub-clause (2) of Clause 4 which is distinct from the permit under Sub-Clause (I) has to be obtained by a person transporting the rice for sale from the premises of a rice-mill. It does not matter whether the, person so transporting is a miller, or a dealer who has delivered the levy rice, or whether be is a purchaser of the rice, (iii) a miller or dealer who has delivered the levy rice, and who transports rice for sale without effecting a sale under a permit obtained under sub-clause (2) of Clause 4, has to obtain a permit under Sub-clause (1) whenever he intends to sell, or otherwise dispose of such stock; (iv) the permit under Sub-clause (1) is not required in the case of second or subsequent sales of levy-free rice; and (v) the authorities prescribed in Clauses 8 and 9 are entitled to call upon any dealer or other person concerned, to satisfy them that there has been no violation of the order. The authorities will of course have to act in accordance with the relevant clauses while taking action thereunder. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions". A clarification was made at the instance of the petitioners in the following words. :"i have already clarified the position in the last paragraph of my judgment according to whic