Court clarifies no permits needed for subsequent levy-free rice sales. Separate court fee per petitioner.

The Court clarified that permits were not required for the second and subsequent sales of levy-free rice despite the respondents' insistence. It held that each petitioner must pay a separate court fee of Rs. 100, as distinct causes of action existed. The A.P. Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, and the Code of Civil Procedure were deemed applicable. The Court allowed the petitioners to amend their petitions and file separate writ petitions individually.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of permits for second and subsequent sales of levy-free rice under the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale Order, 1967.
2. Payment of court-fee when multiple petitioners join in filing a single writ petition.
3. Applicability of the A.P. Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.
4. Applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement of Permits for Second and Subsequent Sales of Levy-Free Rice
The petitioners, registered dealers in rice and broken rice, sought a writ to prohibit the respondents from interfering with the free movement of rice and broken rice in their second and subsequent sales, both within the State and for export to other States. They argued that the respondents' insistence on the production of permits was illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, and violative of their rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 301 of the Constitution of India.

The Court referred to a prior judgment which clarified that:
- The first sale of levy-free rice must be under a permit issued under Clause 4(1) of the 1967 Order.
- A permit under Sub-clause (2) of Clause 4 is required for transporting rice from the premises of a rice mill.
- No permit is required for the second or subsequent sales of levy-free rice.

Despite this clarification, the petitioners claimed that the respondents continued to obstruct the movement of rice and broken rice, demanding permits at various check posts and railway stations, threatening to seize the rice and launch prosecutions.

2. Payment of Court-Fee When Multiple Petitioners Join in Filing a Single Writ Petition
The core issue was whether multiple petitioners could join in filing a single writ petition and pay a single court-fee or if each petitioner had to pay a separate court-fee. The Court examined the provisions of the A.P. Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, specifically Section 6, which prescribes the court-fee payable when a petition is based on distinct and different causes of action.

3. Applicability of the A.P. Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956
The Court noted that under Item 11(s) of Schedule II of the Act, a court-fee of Rs. 100 is payable on a petition to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, Section 6(3)(a) of the Act states that if a suit is based on distinct and different causes of action, the plaint shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of fees that would be chargeable if separate suits were instituted.

4. Applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure to Writ Petitions under Article 226
The Court considered Rule 24 of the rules framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, which states that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply to writ petitions as far as they are not inconsistent with the rules. Order I, Rule 1, CPC, allows multiple persons to join in one suit if the right to relief arises out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions and if common questions of law or fact would arise.

The Court concluded that the acts of the respondents were distinct and different in relation to each petitioner, giving rise to separate causes of action. Therefore, each petitioner would have to pay a separate court-fee of Rs. 100. The Court held that a single writ petition by several petitioners was not maintainable and allowed the petitioners to amend the writ petition by striking off the names of all petitioners except the first petitioner. The remaining petitioners were permitted to file separate writ petitions.

Conclusion
The Court held that:
- The requirement of permits for second and subsequent sales of levy-free rice was clarified in a prior judgment, but the respondents continued to insist on permits.
- Multiple petitioners could not join in a single writ petition without each paying a separate court-fee of Rs. 100.
- The provisions of the A.P. Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, and the Code of Civil Procedure applied to determine the court-fee and the maintainability of joint writ petitions.
- The petitioners were allowed to amend their petitions and file separate writ petitions for each individual petitioner.

---