The provisions of Orders 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code can be invoked as far as they can be made applicable to the proceedings in a writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

SUBBA RAO, C. J : -

The question in this reference is whether the two petitioners who were discharged from service by a single order could file one petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The two petitioners were supervisors of the Market Committee, Guntur. The Government of Andhra, by their order bearing No. 87298/N/56/2 dated 11-10-1956, gave instructions to the Collector, who is the ex-officio Chairman of the Guntur Market Committee, to disband the additional staff immediately. Pursuant to the said instructions, the Guntur Market Committee discharged the two petitioners from service by order bearing R. C. No. 1280/ 56 A2 dated 26-10-1956.

Thereafter, both the petitioners jointly filed a single petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution 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 Art. 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 Art. 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 Art. 226 of the Constitution of India are civil proceedings within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code. Art. 226 of the Constitution of India says : -

"Notwithstanding anything in Art. 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue to any person or authority including in appropriate cases any Government within whose territories directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

Dealing with the scope of this article, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court of which one of us was a member in Ponnuaswami v. Returning Officer Namakkal, 1952-1 Mad LJ 775 (at p. 776) (A), observed at page 782 thus :

" ............Art. 226 confers on every High Court an extensive power to issue writs or other directions in respect of courts throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction for enforcing fundamental rights and for any other purpose. The only limitation is that the power is limited only to the territories over which the High Court had jurisdiction, that is, it can exercise that power within its territorial jurisdiction. It is deliberately intended to keen tribunals within their bounds and to reach injustice wherever it is found.

Before the Constitution, the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras were issuing prerogative writs subject to the limitations created by statutes. The other High Courts had no such power. Even the said three High Courts were not able to reach the tribunals beyond the original jurisdiction of the High Court. They were not authorised to enforce fundamental rights. The content, of the power now conferred under Art. 226 is different and more extensive than the limited power exercised before.

This extraordinary jurisdiction, which I may, for convenience call power to issue constitutional writs is not dealt with by Art. 225. It cannot be treated as part of the jurisdiction of the law administered in any existing High Court, for