Maintainability of joint writ petition and the requirement for separate petitions by aggrieved individuals.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was fixed along with R. S. As. No. 614 of 1955, No. 434 of 1957 and No. 1322 of 1957, as the validity of the taxes imposed by the various District Boards on professions, traders, callings and employments was impugned. There is, however, a preliminary objection that has been raised with regard to the maintainability of the petition which must be sustained. The petition has been filed by the Revenue Patwaris Union, Punjab, through Shri Dhunder Singh Chohan, President, Shri Parma Nand, General Secretary. The petition was filed on behalf of all the Patwaris of the State by their Union, and the authority and jurisdiction of the District Board in the entire State to impose profession tax on the petitioners was challenged. The objection is that such an omnibus petition does not lie and cannot be entertained.

2. In S. M. Muhammad Ibrahim V/s. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Pudukottai, (1956) 2 Mad LJ 23: (AIR 1956 Mad 626), Rajagopala Ayyangar J. had held that the fact that the relief prayed for by the several individuals each of whose individual rights is alleged to have been invaded improperly by the impugned order is ground on a common objection, does not afford any basis for a joint writ petition by several petitioners aggrieved by similar orders. Each of them has to file independent petitions, paying separate court-fee on each, with separate Vakalat etc. This rule was followed in another case by the same learned Judge in Ganapathi Nadar and Sons Factory V/s. State of Madras, (1957) 2 Mad LJ 54: (AIR 1957 Mad 616) where the petition had been filed by a factory through its manager.

3. In fact it is conceded by Mr. Bhagat Singh Chawla, who appears on behalf of the petitioner Union that such a petition is not competent. If it were possible to have allowed amendment so as to convert the petition into one by an individual petitioner, we may have given the permission, but the petition as framed and the affidavits that have been filed do not permit of such a course being adopted. Mr. Chawla, in these circumstances, wishes to withdraw the petition and states that he will filed separate petitions on behalf of individual petitioners. That course may well be open to him, but the present petition must be dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, the parties are left to bear their own costs.