By the Court—The case before us comes on an office report to the effect that a joint petition filed by 41 petitioners for restraining the respondents from enforcing the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act (Act No. 38 of 1961), 1961, the Rules made there under and the bye-laws made by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kishangarh, is not maintainable in view of Rule 375 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, hereinafter to be referred as the "Rules", on the ground that the relief claimed by the petitioners cannot be said to be founded on the same cause of action. The office points out that while the petitioner may have similar or identical causes of action, they cannot be said to have the same cause of action within the meaning of the Rules.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contested the correctness of the office report and as, since the enactment of Rule 375 of the Rules by SRO No. 6 of 9.10.64 a practice has grown up in this Court not to entertain such joint writ petitions, we invited a full dressed argument and have also given notice to the learned Government Advocate. Rule 375 occurs in Chapter XXII, Part IV of the Rules is as follows —

"Rule 375(1). An application for a direction under Art. 226 of the Constitution other than a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus shall be presented to the Registrar who shall direct that the application be laid before a Division Bench or a Judge sitting alone, as the case may be, according to the provisions of Rule 55 for orders.

(2) The application shall state clearly the relief sought and the grounds upon which it is sought and be accompanied by an affidavit verifying the facts relied upon.

(3) The application shall also state whether or not any similar application has been made to the Supreme Court.

(4) An application by more than one person shall not be entertained except when the relief claimed is founded on the same cause of action."

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the relief claimed by the petitioners is founded on the same cause of action and, therefore, the joint petition is maintainable. According to him, the petitioners are carrying on their business in Kishangarh within the area of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kishangarh, and they are affected by the enactment of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, the Rules and bye-laws made thereunder which they are challenging. The writ petition, it is maintained raises common questions of law and fact, as the petitioners freedom to carry on trade and commerce will seriously be affected if? they do not obtain licenses as they are required to do.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Nathmal vs. The Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Rajasthan(l), Qurab Ali vs. The Govt. of Rajasthan(2), Annam Adinarayana vs. State of Andhra Pradesh(3) and four decisions of the Allahabad High Court reported as M/s. Bhumarg Yatayat vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Meerut(4), Durgadas Bhattacharya vs. Municipal Board, Banaras(5), Haji Abdul Qayum vs. Keshav Saran(6) and Khem Karan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh(7).

4. Learned counsel submits that the term cause of action is a bundle of facts on the basis of which a relief is claimed, as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Suraj Rattan Thirani vs. Azamabad Tea Company Ltd.(8), and the learned counsel proceeds to submit that in the present case as the validity of a law is questioned and the relief is founded thereon, the petitioners can be said to have the same cause of action. Mr. M. L. Joshi, learned Deputy Government Advocate, on the other hand contests this stand and submits that what is affected by the impugned law, if at all, are the personal or individual rights of the several petitioners to carry on their trade or business and consequently it being infringement of individual rights the cause of action, that the petitioners claim, cannot be said to be joint or same so as to entitle them to maintain a joint writ petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document