LINSARAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners [as many as 50 persons] who were the applicants in different O.A.s, such as O.A. Nos. 2339, 2371, 2250, 2329, 2281, 2388, 2143, 2026, 1873, 1782, 1672 and 1674 of 2016 filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, have filed this Original Petition, joining together, challenging the common order dated 23.05.2017 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in the different O.A.s

(2.) The Original Petition stands numbered by the Registry. When it came up for admission before this Court, a doubt was expressed by this Court as to whether a 'common O.P.'; as now presented before this Court, would be maintainable, although it arises from the 'common order' dealing with the different O.A.s. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought to assert the maintainability with reference to Rule 147A of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 and also the ruling rendered in Mariamma Punnose v. Tahsildar, Kunnathunad [1979 KHC 182] and in M. Leonard Ashok v. Commerical Tax Officer - 1 and others [2007 (1) KHC 67] contending that the persons, having a common cause of action, can join together and file a single petition, provided, necessary court fee is satisfied.

(3.) The decisions cited across the Bar do not deal with a situation where different petitioners/applicants had filed different O.As/writ petitions before the Tribunals/this Court, ultimately leading to common order passed by the Tribunal/Court in the said cases and later approaching the higher Court together filing a single appeal/Original Petition as in the instant case. The issue can be viewed from another angle as well. The present Original Petition itself runs to 576 pages. Obviously, the number of petitioners in different Original Applications and the number of respondents were different. The prayer in the instant case is to extend similar benefit as given by this Court to the petitioners vide judgment dated 205.2017 in O.P. (KAT) No. 125 of 2017 and connected cases. If such a relief is given in the instant case by passing a (common) verdict and if any of the party respondents is aggrieved of the same, in relation to the relief sought for in the particular Original Application and wants to challenge it by approaching the Apex Court or by filing a review petition before this Court, it may become obligatory for the said party to raise such challenge, arraying all the petitioners in this O.P. [all of whom were not parties to the particular Original Application filed before the Tribunal]. In so far as they are having no connection with regard to the issue in the particular case [where they were not parties], such persons will have to be impleaded quite unnecessarily in the party array. Steps may have to be taken, producing sufficient number of copies of the proceedings [running to 576 pages] to be served to all the respondents, so as to make it free from 'defect' in any manner. This, will unnecessarily increase the work load of the Registry and this Court as well; besides pecuniary loss to the litigant and other undue hardships. That apart, if at all any reference is to be made to the respondents, since the serial number of the respondents are different in the different O.A.s, it will be practically difficult for this Court. Same is the position with regard to the reference, if at all any, made to the Annexures produced in different O.A.s, as same/similar nomenclature will be there in all the O.A.s. As it stands so, the proceedings ought to have been noted 'defective' by the Registry, enabling the petitioners to file separate Original Petitions in respect of the separate Original Applications.