V G TAMASKAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the result and effect of the order dated 20-4-2007 passed in Writ Appeal No. 48/2007, the petitioner who is a registered member of State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh having its number as CG330/1982/ advocate has filed this review petition.

(2.) TO regulate filing of the petition by the Sessions/union and payment of Court fee, the Registrar General of this High Court on 3-4-2007 issued the following circular : "circular no. 8466 Dated 3/4/2007 as provided under Rule 126 of the High court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2005 with regard to procedure for filing specially having regard to computerization requirement following circular may be issued. Petitions filed by several persons having similar but separate and distinct interest in the subject-matter of controversy involving common questions of law and facts may file a common petition but each petitioner shall pay a separate court fee. If the petition is filed by/on behalf of a society/union then the following particulars have to be mentioned :-That the society/union has been registered under the Societies Registration Act and, if registered that the petition has been accompanied by certificate of registration, certified as true copy. That the society/union passed any resolution empowering the person through whom the petition has been filed and that the petition is accompanied by true copy of resolution, and the number of members of the society/ union. If the petition has been filed through a power of attorney holder, that it has been accompanied by a copy of such power of attorney, certified as true copy. Each member of the Society/union shall pay a separate Court-fee. For all other purposes, it shall be treated as a single petition and the office shall assign one number. Such common writ petition shall be in the format as prescribed in the principal Rule and shall be supported by an affidavit of any one of the petitioners. For such common petition one Vakalatnama with one set of Court Fee stamp shall be sufficient.

(3.) AFTER the above circular was issued, on 20-4-2007 the writ appeal came up for hearing on the Board wherein it was ordered that no society has any fundamental right, therefore, the writ appeal filed on behalf of the society is not maintainable. However, learned counsel for the appellant conceded and prayed for permission to implead the members of the society and in the process had also agreed to pay Court fee on behalf of each and every member of the Society. Therefore, the Court had issued a direction to implead all the members of the society as parties to the proceedings and had further directed to pay necessary Court fee by every member,