SATISH CHANDRA, C. J.

( 1 ) A Division Bench of our Court has referred five questions of law to a larger Bench. The questions are-1. Whether an association of persons, registered or unregistered can maintain a petition under article 226 of the Constitution for the enforcement of the rights of its members as distinguished from the enforcement of its own rights?

( 2 ) WHETHER a single writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable on behalf of more than one petitioners, not connected with each other as partners or those who have no other legally subsisting jural relationship, where the questions of law and fact, Involved in the petition, are common?

( 3 ) IN case the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether only one set of court-fees would be payable on such petition or each such individual petitioner has to pay court-fees separately?

( 4 ) IN case answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, whether the defect of misjoinder of several petitioners in the writ petition can be cured by requiring each such petitioner to pay separate court-fees?

( 5 ) WHETHER the petition is maintainable for questioning similar actions taken by different Mandi samitis independently of each other in cases where the aggrieved party seeks relief against each such committee on identical grounds? 2. These questions arise out of writ petitions filed by a large number of persons jointly. For instance, in Writ Petition No. 13367 of 1981 36 partnership firms have filed a single writ petition. Each such firm carries on business independently and under a licence granted to it separately by the Mandi Samiti. 3. In Writ Petition No. 6886 of 1980 there are 22 petitioners. Petitioners 1 to 21 are traders who carry on business of commission agent in finished tobacco. Petitioner No. 2 is a registered association of which petitioners Nos. 1 to 21 are members. 4. In each writ petition the petitioners claim that the Mandi Samiti is not entitled to charge market fee. They pray that the Mandi Samiti be directed not to demand payment of market fee. In some cases they have prayed for quashing of the notices issued by the Mandi Samiti for filing returns and paying the market fee. 5. In each writ petition the ground of attack is common to all various petitioners. For instance, in writ Petition No. 6886 of 1980 all the 22 petitioners claim that tobacco is not a specified agricultural produce. The Mandi Samiti is hence not entitled to charge any market fee in respect of transactions of manufactured tobacco. In Writ Petition No. 133/67 of 1981 all the 36 petitioners state that since the Mandi Samiti does not render any service, it is not entitled to charge market fee from the traders.

( 6 ) AT the hearing of the writ petitions the respondents raised a preliminary objection. It was submitted that an association of traders had no locus standi to file a writ petition on behalf of the traders when no right of the association as such was being adversely affected by the impugned action of the Mandi Samiti It was also urged that the various traders have an independent cause of action in respect of their liability to pay market fee. They cannot validly join in a single writ petition. In any event they must pay separata sets of court-fees.

( 7 ) IT has also urged that in some cases several Mandi Samitis have been made defendants. They may have different defences. This will lead to confusion and multifariousness. Such a writ petition is not maintainable.

( 8 ) THE Division Bench felt that the questions raised by these preliminary objections should more properly engage the attention of a larger Bench. Accordingly the Bench has referred the afovesaid questions of law for decision by a larger Bench, That is how the matter has come before this Full Bench.

( 9 ) WE shall deal with the questions seriatim. Question No. 1 : "whether an association of persons, registered or unregistered can maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the enforceme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document