- (1.) 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 thereunder 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 relied claimed by the petitioners cannot be said to be founded on the same cause of action The office points out that while the petitioners 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 S. R. O. No. 6 of 910-64 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 Article 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 licences as they are required to do
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Nathmal v. Commissioner Civil Supplies, Rajasthan, ILR (1951) 1 Raj 674 : (AIR 1952 Raj 74), qurab Aliv. Govt. of Rajasthan, ILR (1959) 9 Raj 1084 : (AIR 1960 Raj 152), annam Adinarayana v State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1958 Andh Pra 16 and four decisions of the Allahabad High Court reported as Bhumarg Yatayat v Regional transport Authority, Meerut, AIR 1962 All 145, Durga Das Bhattacharya v. Municipal Board, Banaras, AIR 1962 All 277, Abdul Qayum v. Keshav Saran, AIR 1964 All 386 and Khem Karan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR I960 All 255.;