( 1 ) IN these petitions the question that falls for consideration is "whether passing of a Legislation by itself confers a right on the Petitioners to file a Writ Petition unless a cause of action arises thereof '?

( 2 ) PETITIONERS are Companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is contended that they receive various notified goods from time to time from other States meant for use or ' consumption in their business. They have filed these Writ Petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Special Tax on Entry of Certain Goods Act, 2004, and the notifications issued thereunder in No. FD 133 CET 2004 dated 30. 09. 2004.

( 3 ) I have heard Sri G. Sarangan, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and Niloufer Akbar, Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.

( 4 ) THE State Legislature has passed a Legislation called "the Karnataka Special Tax on Entry of Certain Goods Act, 2004" (for short 'the Act') published in the Karnataka Gazette on 11th August, 2004. The said Act has been passed to provide for levy of Special Tax on Entry of Certain Goods into local areas for consumption, use or sale therein. The said Act has come into force w. e. f. 20th September 2004. Section 3 is the, Charging provision which is as follows;" Levy and collection of tax- (1 ). Subject to other provisions of this Act, there shall be levied and collected a tax on the entry of any notified goods into any local area for consumption, use or sale therein, on the value of the notified goods at the rate specified in respect of such goods under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. (2) The tax shall be payable by an importer in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder".

( 5 ) IN terms of the charging provision a Notification No. FD 133 CET 2004 dated 30. 09. 2004 has been issued effectuating charge on the goods notified therein. Another notification No. FD 147 CET 2004 dated 25. 10. 2004 has been issued in terms, of Sub Section (1) of Section 5 of the Act exempting certain persons from payment of taxes.

( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the authorities under the Act have not initiated any proceedings against the Petitioners for levy and collection of taxes as on the date of filing of the Writ Petitions. Therefore, the question for consideration in these Writ Petitions is whether the Petitioners have a cause of action for filing the Writ Petitions?

( 7 ) CLAUSE (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India states that the powers conferred under Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue directions/orders or writs 'to any Government Authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to territories within which the cause of action wholly or in part arises for exercise of such powers. Therefore, accrual of cause of action must be antecedent to the institution of a Writ Petition. There is no statutory definition of a cause of action. Therefore, the definition of cause of, action provided in the decisions rendered on interpretation, of Section 20 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to the writ proceedings also since the phraseology in Section 20 (c) of the C. PC. and Clause (2) of Article 226 are similar although in view of Section 141 of the C. P. C. , the provisions of the C. P. C. would not apply to writ proceedings. In Wharton's Law Lexicon (15th Edition) a cause of action is defined as follows:"cause of Action, a right to sue. All the facts which are necessary to establish the plaintiff's right to the remedy which he claims".

( 8 ) IN Kusum Ingots And Alloys Limited. Vs. Union Of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254, it is held as follows:"cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean th