AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.—I agree with the Office Note. Where a petitioner desires to question the validity or legality of an order, he is
entitled to apply for an appropriate writ but this right of his flows from the order affecting him. The fact that similar orders are passed in the case of
other individuals also be it by the same officer or authority, does not mean that the injury caused is a common or class injury so as to justify a single
petition with all the individuals similarly affected joining in it as petitioners. The provision in Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, seeks to
obviate the inconveniences arising out of a multiplicity of parties - but neither the rule nor its principle can be extended to Writ Petitions. Again the
fact that the relief prayed for by the several petitioners each of whose individual right is alleged to have been invaded improperly by the impugned
order is grounded on a common objection, the invalidity of the legislation or the rule or some order interpreting or enforcing the statute or the rule
does not also 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. In these cases I have directed the petitioners to amend the petitions so as
to retain only one petitioner on the record and as this has been done I have admitted the Writ Petitions.