Joint writ petition maintainability turns on same cause of action; common order alone is not enough where interests differ.

A joint writ petition is maintainable only where the relief claimed arises from the same cause of action; a common impugned order alone is insufficient if the petitioners are affected differently and their interests are distinct. Applying Rule 375 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, the Court sustained the objection of misjoinder of parties and causes of action because some petitioners were not adversely affected in the same manner and part of the order concerned only an inquiry. The separate objection based on concealment of material facts and lack of clean hands was rejected, as the alleged non-disclosures were not shown to have been made to mislead the Court or found the relief on a false basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a joint writ petition by multiple petitioners was maintainable under Rule 375 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules where the reliefs arose from different causes of action. (ii) Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected for concealment of material facts and lack of clean hands.

Issue (i): Whether a joint writ petition by multiple petitioners was maintainable under Rule 375 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules where the reliefs arose from different causes of action.

Analysis: Rule 375, as amended, bars an application by more than one person unless the relief claimed is founded on the same cause of action. The common order challenged by the petitioners did not affect all of them in the same manner. The interests of one petitioner were distinct from those of others, some petitioners were not adversely affected at all, and in respect of part of the order only an inquiry was directed. A common impugned order does not by itself establish the same cause of action. Misjoinder of parties and causes of action was therefore made out.

Conclusion: The joint petition was not maintainable and the objection under Rule 375 was sustained in favour of the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected for concealment of material facts and lack of clean hands.

Analysis: The alleged non-disclosures related to earlier injunction and appellate proceedings, but those facts had no bearing on the principal objection regarding maintainability. The concealment was not shown to have been made with an intent to mislead the Court or to obtain relief on a false foundation.

Conclusion: The objection based on concealment of facts and want of clean hands was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the preliminary objection on maintainability under the rule governing joint applications, while rejecting the objection based on concealment, and granted time for the petitioners to proceed separately if so advised.

Ratio Decidendi: A joint writ petition is maintainable only when the relief claimed is founded on the same cause of action; a common impugned order alone does not satisfy that requirement where the petitioners are affected differently and their legal interests are distinct.

---