•is^sB^s^^efx^^SEi^^.ss^^sSfSi^^^SiiiS ••''^^:>:i;.(^:::'^^-'<M^!.^S^@ei^:^^^ CFOOOD110321 '^apag?t^f@ara^,s¥.Ina&ra'rM^}ceft,c&rgy;:.-':^.:,;-':^ ^-;^asse%I^i^n^'-fi'|adgES,^^i'3etng^H/'•^:;^ ;lffie^r.°-regBS^:l^^Ms^^:se's :''^:.a:nair«,.-.^:'.:1;''.K.S^ .MaS'llEefe^;a^^^':tla]^gi^^^.%eist^B^^< ,.';:;:^ -ShP:ta^g^egti^^%^giM*p:aggd^afe]ia^,':,:^1.. . •:':,:^/.'ffl:i^l:^' ':11'^® -681/ye; B^.se®r'of^Sfca^^]^d(3Q?:SliigS/''..'..,;..^'.';'',''A?;::i^,M.^-'l-S •IhaIniy,':'resiaefito^:^ttp.sr:s^.&rs?M.^ VESSB'S Bae iAaiaEnl;s'6Ssi't®r, PBTITIQKIJSWi^TIGEE 2^^®S;SHE:'GC TI^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5130 of 1993 PETITIONER : Vyapari Sangh, Indira Market, Durg. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Durg. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. ssas fsafis, Present: Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 03rd day of December, 2010) p-=pTB^K. The instant petition, file by the association of traders namely Vyapari Sangh, Indira Market, Durg, seeks quashing of the bills (Annexure P/7), letters (Annexure P/9) and the demand notices (Annexiire P/10) for payment ofannual rent, local taxes and other payments due from the individual traders. On query, asto whether the association is liable to make payment of taxes and other charges, as aforestated, to the respondent- Corporation, learaed counsel for the petitioner categorically submits that these taxes or charges are payable by the individual shop owners and they are individually liable to pay the same.The petitioner has failed to establish that the member ofthe petitioner- association are not individually affected. It is a general rule that the right which is a foundation of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is perM>nal and individual right. The Supreme Court, m Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Others , observed as under: "34; This Court has laid down in a number of decisions that in order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary ' (1976)1 SCC671 \--^ !. /"»,; '' f^- a-y -.-i.'h^fa.. \ \ ":•. •^'^.^ Ci i»?'rt&S^Sife^ sigi@i!u?s!ES !ii jurisdiction under Article 226, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject matter of the application, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed or modified. In other words, as a general rule, iafringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest in hearing the petition is necessary to give him a locus standi in the matter. (see: State ofCfrissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta; Caicutta Gas Co. v. State of W.B; Ram Umeshwari Sutoo v. Member, Board ofRevenue, Orissa; Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government ofA.P.; State ofOrissa v. Rajasaheb Chandnmall; Dr. Satyanarayan Sinha v. M/s. S.Lal & Co.)" In Mota Singh & Others v. State ofHaryana & Others , wherein a group oftruck owners filed a common petition, the Supreme Court held thaf each one has his own cause of action arising out of the liability to pay tax individually. The petition of each one should be separate and independent. A petition with one fee is not maintainable on the ground that there is a common cause ofaction. In view of the well settled proposition of law, as aforestated, the petition filed by the association seeking redressal of grievances of individual shop owners, which is direct and independent and the association has nothing to do with the liability of the individual shop owners on the ground that there is a common cause of action, is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the individual shop owners to take appropriate steps m accordance with law, ifso advised. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotrj Judge Amit