The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of detailed pleadings and the payment of court fees based on individual entitlements, as well as the application of Rule 4A of the Andhra Pradesh Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977.

JUDGMENT

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J. - The above writ petition is filed by two registered Societies to direct the respondents to pay the yearly annuity amounts as per the bills submitted by 5th respondent and to pay interest @24% per annum on the delayed payment of annuity and damages and other appropriate orders.

2. The writ petition was numbered and thereafter listed before the Court in the caption of Admission.

3. The 8th respondent is impleaded as a party to the writ petition as per the order in I.A.No.2 of 2023 dtd. 16/10/2023.

4. Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 4, 5 and 7 filed objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and prayed the Court, to decide the maintainability of the writ petition. Learned counsel for 8th respondent also raised objections regarding maintainability of the writ petition.

5. The objections raised regarding maintainability of writ petition are that -

(a) Writ petition is filed in representative capacity under Order I Rule 8 of CPC on behalf of members of two Societies and the list of members is not filed.

(b) Leave was not sought from the Court as required under Order I Rule 8 of CPC.

(c) G.O.Ms.No.75 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M2) Department dtd. 14/4/2015 is an executive order issued without financial concurrence and hence, no rights can be claimed under the said G.O.

(d) A separate Court fee must be paid for each of the members in the two petitioner societies.

(e) Writ petition filed by the societies on behalf of its members without disclosing the details of members is not maintainable.

6. Heard Sri Unnam Muralidhar, learned senior counsel representing Sri Unnam Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 4, 5 and 7 and Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for 8th respondent.

7. Learned counsel for 8th respondent placed reliance upon the following judgments -

a) Ramachander Sunda Vs. Union of India, (1999) 9 SCC 105.

b) Santosh and Ors. Vs. Registrar, AIR 2018 BOM 146.

c) Mota Singh and Ors. Vs.b State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 484.

d) In Re: Grain International and Ors., AIR 1981 AP 301.

e) Govindrao Atmaramji Warjurkar and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 BOM 383 .

8. Per contra, learned senior counsel representing the petitioners would submit that since the cause of action is common and the interest of members of the society are common, single writ petition is maintainable. He would also submit that all the members of petitioners Societies are farmers, who gave their lands for construction of the capital. He would further submit that the prayer in the writ petition is to direct the Government agency to adhere to payment, as such technicalities need not be gone into. He would submit that, the members of the Societies are small and marginal. He also would submit that the government should act as a model or ideal litigant.

9. Learned senior counsel for petitioners placed reliance upon the following judgments:

a) Ch.Raji Reddy and others Vs. APSRTC, Secunderabad and another, 2000 (5) ALD 352.

b) Mota Singh and Ors. Vs.b State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 484.

c) M.Thirupathi Reddy and others Vs. Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Oilseeds Growers' Federation Ltd., Hyd. And others, 2000 (4) ALD 1.

d) Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar and others Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bharthana and another, AIR 1984 Allahabad 46.

e) Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil Vs. State of Maharastra and others, (2020) 19 SCC 241.

f) Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) Vs. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 246.

g) Chairman Tamilnadu Housing Board, Madras Vs. T.N.Ganapathy, (1990) 1 SCC 608.

h) Puran Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 204.

i) Babubhai Muljibhai Patel Vs. Nandlal Khididas Barot others, (1974) 2 SCC 706.

j) Challamane Huchha Gowda Vs. M.R.Tirumala and another, (2004) 1 SCC 453 .

10. Now the points for consideration are:

1) Whether the writ petition filed