Common writ petition maintainable for identically placed members where the dispute turns on a pure question of law.

A registered association may maintain a common writ petition on behalf of identically placed members where the challenge arises from the same clarification and statutory setting, and the dispute is predominantly a question of law rather than individual factual differences. The association's own assessee status was not decisive because the grievance was collectively espoused by a large majority of affected members. The writ petition was therefore maintainable, while individual assessees remained free to answer the notices and establish their status before the assessing authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition filed by the association on behalf of its members was maintainable.

Analysis: The association was a registered society and the members in question were said to be identically placed, with the challenge founded on the same clarification and the same statutory setting. The Court held that a common writ petition was not objectionable merely because the affected members were many in number, as the cause of action was common and the dispute turned on a pure question of law rather than individual turnover differences. The absence of the association's own assessee status did not defeat maintainability when the grievance was espoused collectively by a large majority of its members.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The association was permitted to pursue the common challenge on behalf of its members, while individual assessees were left to respond to the notices and establish their status before the assessing authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A registered association may maintain a writ petition on behalf of identically placed members where the cause of action is common and the controversy is predominantly one of law.

---