Order I agree with the Office Note. Where a petitioner desires to question the validity or legality of an order, he is entitled to apply for an appropriate writ but this right of his flows from the order affecting him. The fact that similar orders are passed in the case of other individuals also be it by the same officer or authority, does not mean that the injury caused is a common or class injury so as to justify a single petition with all the individuals similarly affected joining in it as petitioners. The provision in Order 1, rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, seeks to obviate the inconveniences arising out of a multiplicity of parties - but neither the rule nor its principle can be ex ended to Writ Petitions. Again the fact that the relief prayed for by the several petitioners each of whose individual right is alleged to have been invaded improperly by the impugned order is grounded on a common objection, the invalidity of the legislation or the rule or some order interpreting or enforcing the statute or the rule does not also afford any basis for a joint Writ Petition by several petitioners aggrieved by similar orders. Each of them has to file independent petitions, paying separate Court-fee on each, with separate vakalat, etc. In these cases I have directed the petitioners to amend the petitions so as to retain only one petitioner on the record and as this has been done I have admitted the Writ Petitions. K.S. ----- Petitions admitted. S.R. No. 6470 is filed for stay of further proceedings on the basis of demands for payment of taxes by the petitioners. But particulars of the demands such as the number of the proceedings, date, amount, etc., have not been disclosed. It appears necessary that separate petitions should be filed in respect of the demands made on each of the petitioners, setting out in the prayer, fuller particulars of the demands or other proceedings sought to be stayed, or the petition converted into one for an injunction, and the petitioners may therefore be directed accordingly. S.R. Nos. 6474 (Writ Petition) and 6473 (Injunction Petition). - The petitioners and respondents herein are the same as in S.R. Nos. S.R. Nos. 6474 (Writ Petition) and 6473 (Injunction Petition). - The petitioners and respondents herein are the same as in S.R. Nos. 6468 and 6470, the ranks of the petitioners being however given differently, and the prayer in S.R. No. 6471 is also for a writ of mandamus based on the same grounds, for restraining the respondents from taking any action against the petitioners in pursuance of the Rules framed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939) as amended by Madras Act (XIII of 1955). An ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from taking any action against the petitioners under the impugned Rules is sought for in the Petition S.R. No. 6473. The same consideration regarding maintainability applicable to the connected S.R. Nos. 6468 and 6470 in respect of the impugned Act apply to these petitions also and all the petitions are therefore submitted for orders of Court for a ruling on the points raised above.