1957 (6) TMI 17 - HC - Indian Laws

Consolidation of Petitions under Article 226 for Common Relief: Court Affirms Civil Nature of Proceedings

Annam Adinarayana and Anr. Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.

Annam Adinarayana and Anr. Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. - AIR 1958 AP 16 Issues Involved:1. Whether two petitioners discharged from service by a single order could file one petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Whether proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are civil proceedings within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether two petitioners discharged from service by a single order could file one petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:The petitioners, who were supervisors of the Market Committee, Guntur, were discharged from service by a single order following instructions from the Government of Andhra. They filed a joint petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order terminating their services. The core issue was whether a single petition was maintainable or if separate petitions were required, which would affect the court-fee payable.The court examined the applicability of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to proceedings under Article 226. It was argued that the provisions of the CPC, specifically Order 1 Rule 1, allowed for a joint petition since the petitioners were challenging the validity of a single order. The Government Pleader contended that Article 226 proceedings were not civil proceedings and should follow English practice, where separate petitions would be required.The court referred to several precedents, including decisions from the Madras High Court and the Andhra High Court, which treated Article 226 proceedings as civil proceedings. The court concluded that Section 141 CPC, which mandates that the procedure provided in the CPC for suits should be followed in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction, applied to writ proceedings under Article 226. Consequently, the provisions of Order 1 Rule 1 and Order 2 Rule 3 CPC were applicable, allowing for the joinder of plaintiffs if the right to relief arose from the same act or transaction and there was a common question of law or fact.The court also considered the principles laid down in previous judgments, such as Kumarayya J.'s decision in a similar case and Rajagopala Ayyengar J.'s ruling that similar orders affecting different individuals did not justify a single petition. However, the court distinguished these cases based on the facts that the petitioners in the present case were aggrieved by a single act of the Collector, and there was a common question of law and fact.2. Whether proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are civil proceedings within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code:The court analyzed the nature of Article 226 proceedings, referencing Article 226 itself, which grants High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose within their territorial jurisdiction. The court cited a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, which recognized the extensive and extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by Article 226, distinct from the jurisdiction under Article 225.The court also referred to a Division Bench decision in Ryots of Garabandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi, which held that an order refusing a writ of certiorari was passed in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction. This view was supported by another Division Bench in Chenchanna v. P. S. Transport Ltd., which held that an order under Article 226 could be reviewed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.Despite the Government Pleader's reliance on a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court, which held that Article 226 proceedings were not civil proceedings within the meaning of Article 133 of the Constitution, the court adhered to the consistent view of the Madras and Andhra High Courts that Article 226 proceedings are civil proceedings. This interpretation was deemed binding due to numerous unreported decisions following the same reasoning.The court concluded that Article 226 proceedings are civil proceedings, and therefore, the procedure provided in the CPC, including Orders 1 and 2, should be followed as far as applicable. This allowed for the joinder of plaintiffs in a single petition if the right to relief arose from the same act or transaction and there was a common question of law or fact.Summary:The court held that a single petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable for the two petitioners discharged by a single order, as the right to relief arose from the same act of the Collector, and there was a common question of law and fact. The court also affirmed that proceedings under Article 226 are civil proceedings within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code, thereby allowing the application of CPC provisions to such writ petitions.