ORDER :- I am now concerned only with the question whether two or more persons can join in a single petition for a writ of mandamus to enforce their separate claims. The petitioners before me are individual owners of ten rice mills in Krishna District. Ever since 1951, each one of these ten petitioners has been taking out a separate licence in respect of his mill on payment of a fixed licence fee of Rs. 24/-. A sum of Rs. 200 collected by way of deposit for the due performance of the conditions of licence still continues to be a deposit for the same. But, when the petitioners applied separately as usual for renewal of their licences for the year 1956-57, the Collector of Krishna made a demand of a further deposit of Rs. 300 from each on the ground that the mill of every petitioner is equipped with a sheller or a sheller grinding stone. Aggrived by these orders, the petitioners have come to this Court. Through this joint petition they now call in question the legality of the orders passed on their respective petitions and request that a writ of mandamus or any order or direction in the nature of a writ be issued to the Collector, Krishna directing him to renew the licences of the petitioners and to forbear from taking any steps for default of payment of additional deposit pending disposal of the writ petitions.

2. It must be noted here that the orders impugned are as many as ten in number and each of them affects only a particular petitioner. There is not a single order which gives rise to a common cause of action. All that can be said of them is that they are similar in nature and involve a point of common interest. The point therefore for consideration is, whether the petitioners aggrieved by similar orders can join in one action for a writ.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners argues that the petitioners have invoked civil jurisdiction of this Court for the issue of a writ, that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code therefore apply and that as O. 1, R. 1 permits such joinder of petitioners a common petition is tenable in law. It is correct to state that such a writ petition is a civil proceeding and the jurisdiction of this Court in this behalf is original as distinguished from the appellate or revisional jurisdiction and it is summary in nature. Provisions of Civil Procedure Code are no doubt available to such proceedings but only as far as they are consistent with the nature and scope of the proceedings and general principles guiding such writs.

I am therefore not prepared to hold that principles of O. 1, R. 1, C. P. C. or O. 1, R. 8, C. P. C. must be extended to such petitions. In Halsburys Laws of England (Hailsham 2nd Edition, Vol. 9) in paragraph 1325 at page 783 the general principle relating to patitions for issue of writ of mandamus has been stated in the following words :

"Two or more persons cannot join in a single petition for a writ of mandamus to enforce separate claims. There must be separate applications for separate writs and this although the several applicants are successors in the office in respect of which claims arise."

This rule is warranted by the nature of the writ proceedings and is calculated to remove great inconvenience which might otherwise result in issuing several writs, orders or directions in the nature of writ on a single omnibus petition relating to rights of several persons affected by distinct or separate orders. The right of a person to apply for an appropriate writ flows from the order that affects him. A person desirous of questioning the validity or legality of such order is entitled, subject to other conditions, to apply for such writ.

It is not open to him to join in this petition other person or persons affected by similar orders, for they too have a remedy open to them and the quashing of one order does not necessarily render the other order null and void. The case, however, may be different where a common or class injury is done by some common order or orders. Even in ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document