Back
1980 Supreme(Raj) 213
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.K.Mal Lodha, J.
Kamji - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 469, 475 and 574 of 1979.
Decided On : 7-02-1980
A joint writ petition is not maintainable unless the petitioners have the same cause of action.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - JOINT WRIT PETITION - NECESSARY PARTY - COMPLICATED AND DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT - GRAMDAN ACT, 1971 (RAJASTHAN ACT NO. XII OF 1971) - SECTIONS 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 - RULES 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 - PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS - DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITION.
Fact of the Case:
Ten petitioners filed a joint writ petition challenging the declaration of their village as a Gramdan village under the Rajasthan Gramdan Act, 1971. The petitioners alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The State of Rajasthan, Chairman, Rajasthan Gramdan Board, Collector, Banswara, and Chairman Gramsabha, Padola were impleaded as respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Gram Sabha was a necessary party to the writ petition as it was directly affected by the declaration of the village as a Gramdan village. The court also held that the joint writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioners did not have the same cause of action. Further, the court found that the writ petition involved complicated and disputed questions of fact which could not be conveniently determined in writ proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the Gram Sabha was a necessary party to the writ petition? 2. Whether the joint writ petition was maintainable? 3. Whether the writ petition involved complicated and disputed questions of fact?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Gram Sabha was a necessary party to the writ petition as it was directly affected by the declaration of the village as a Gramdan village. The court relied on Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Gramdan Act, 1971, which provides that all persons whose names are included in the register referred to in Section 14 shall be deemed to constitute a Gram Sabha for the Gramdan village. 2. The court held that the joint writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioners did not have the same cause of action. The court relied on Rule 375(4) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, which provides that an application by more than one person shall not be entertained except when the relief claimed is founded on the same cause of action. 3. The court held that the writ petition involved complicated and disputed questions of fact which could not be conveniently determined in writ proceedings. The court relied on a catena of cases of the Supreme Court and this Court that where the basic facts are disputed and complicated questions of facts and law depending on evidence are involved, the writ Court is not the proper forum for seeking relief.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions on the grounds that the Gram Sabha was a necessary party, the joint writ petition was not maintainable, and the writ petition involved complicated and disputed questions of fact.
(1) that the writ petition is belated, for, declaration was made on July 18,1978 and it was filed on February 24,979.
(8) that the writ petition is not properly constituted
(4) that the questions raised by the petitioners are complicated, which cannot be conveniently examined in the writ proceedings and,
(4) that the petitioners are guilty of making false statements in the writ petition and as they have not come with clean hands, it is liable to be dismissed.
As regards merits of the writ petition, it was stated that the declaration of the village Padola as Gramdan village was made after following the procedure are laid down in Sections. 8,10 and 11 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and, therefore, it was prayed in the reply that the writ petition should be dismissed.
(1) that Gramdan Board and Gram Sabha are necessary parties to the writ petition and in their absence, the writ petition should fail ;
(2) that a joint writ petition on behalf of the petitioners is not maintainable ; and
(3) that the writ petition involves complicated and disputed questions of fact, which cannot conveniently be gone into in the writ proceedings and, therefore, it should not be entertained.
Arguments were heard on the preliminary objections and the cause was ordered to be put up for admission on February 1, 1930 as agreed to by the learned Counsel. On February 1, 1960, it was ordered to be put up for admission on February 2, 1980. It appears that on January 30,1980, learned Counsel for the petitioners moved an application stating inter alia, (1) that to avoid the controversy and in the interest of justice, the petitioners may be allowed to add Gramdan Board, Bhoodan Board and Gramsabha as parties to the writ petition, (2) that the writ petition can be decided on the facts on record and to avoid the controversy, matters relating to the authorisation of A
