SUDHIR NARAIN, J. - (1.) THE question is whether one set of court fee is payable when there is common cause for each of the petitioners and the question of law and facts involved in the writ petition are the same.
(2.) THE facts raising controversy are that the four petitioners in this petition were under the employment of U. P. Electricity Board. Their services were terminated. The orders of termination of services were quashed in Writ Petition No. 16885 of 1992. The petitioners were reemployed. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition is that whereas in Azamgarh Division of the U. P. Power Corporation, the muster roll employees are being paid the same wages which are being paid to the regular employees but they are not being paid the same wages. They have sought mandamus commanding the respondents to place the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs. 4,200 -6,400 which is the pay scale for those who are employed as regular employees of the respondents. The Full Bench of this Court in Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar and Ors. v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bharthana and Anr., AIR 1984 All 46, considered the following five questions which were referred to the larger Bench as under : '(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? The question Nos. 1, 3 and 4 may be grouped in one category. The question Nos. 2 and 5 may be grouped in second category. The first category may be examined first. First Category.
(3.) THE question as to whether any association of persons registered or unregistered can maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of the rights of its members as distinguished from the enforcement of its own rights. The Full Bench in Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar's case (supra) answered the question in affirmative as under : 'To summarise, the position appears to be that an association of persons, registered or unregistered, can file a petition under Article 226 for enforcement of the rights of its members as distinguished from the enforcement of its own rights - (1) In case members of such an association are themselves unable to approach the Court by reason of poverty, disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position 'little Indians'). (2) In case of a public injury leading to public interest litigation provided the association has some concern deeper than that of a way -farer or a busybody, i.e., it has a special interest in the subject -matter. (3) Whether the Rules or Regulations of the association specifically authorise it to take legal proceedings on behalf of its members, so that any order passed by the Court in such proceedings will be binding on the members.' ;