A single writ petition cannot challenge separate orders arising from distinct causes of action.

The petitioner sought permission to hold one-day fasts at two locations, and challenged in a single writ petition separate rejection orders issued by the Inspectors of Police at Kovilpatti and Sattur.

He argued that both orders responded to the same representation and concerned the same subject matter.

The Court questioned whether the distinct orders and causes of action could be challenged in one petition.

The Appeal Examiner referred to Rule 3 of the Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021, which permits multiple reliefs arising from the same cause of action.

1. Whether a single writ petition may challenge separate rejection orders made by different police officers where the Court considers them to arise from distinct causes of action.

2. Whether dismissal on maintainability grounds should preclude the petitioner from filing separate writ petitions or entitle him to a refund of court fees.

Rule 3(3) of the Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021 permits multiple reliefs in one writ petition where those reliefs arise from the same cause of action.

The Court held that this provision did not permit the petitioner to combine the challenges here, because the two rejection orders, passed by different Inspectors of Police, arose from distinct causes of action.

No precedent was cited.

Although the petitioner relied on the common representation and subject matter, the Court treated the two separate rejection orders as arising from distinct causes of action.

It therefore concluded that Rule 3(3) did not support challenging both orders in one petition, making the petition procedurally not maintainable.

Taking account of the petitioner’s request to file separate petitions, the Court directed a court-fee refund in accordance with the applicable rules and clarified that dismissal would not prevent separate challenges, if otherwise maintainable.

It directed the Registry to refund the court fee in accordance with the applicable rules, permitted the petitioner to challenge each rejection order in a separate writ petition if so advised and otherwise maintainable, and directed that the original impugned orders be returned after photocopies were retained for the record.

The Registrar (Judicial) was also requested to instruct Registry staff to exercise due caution when scrutinising petitions involving multiple prayers based on distinct causes of action.