JUDGMENT V.D. Oak, J. - This writ petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution relates to taxation by a Town Area Committee. Phool Chand and ten other Petitioners are all residents of Town Area, Sasni in district Aligarh. They have been assessed to various amounts of tax by the Town Area Committee, Sasni. The Petitioner's contertion is that, they have been illegally taxed. They have, therefore, filed this writ petition for getting the assessment orders quashed. Appeals were filed against the orders of assessment. Those appeals were dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Koil. It is prayed that the appellate orders should also be quashed. 2. Inder Kumar Jain is Petitioner No. 11. He has filed an affidavit on behalf of all the eleven Petitioners. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit it is stated that, the applicants are residents of Sasni within the limits of Town Area Sasni, and that they are employed in Khandelwal Glass Works, Sasni, district Aligarh situated outside the limits of the said Town Area. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit it is stated that, all the activities of the applicants in connection with their employment in the Glass Factory are outside the limits of the Town Area, that applican s Nos. 2, 5, 6, 9 and 11 have no immovable property or business yielding income or profits within the said local limits of the Town Area, and that applicants Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7 and 10 have income from the Glass Factory as well as within the Town Area. 3. The tax Clerk of the Town Area Committee, Sasni has filed a counter affidavit. The contents of paragraph 2 of the affidavit have not been expressly denied in the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that, paragraph 3 of the affidavit is untrue. All the applicants reside within the Sasni Town Area Limits. Applicants Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 also possess immovable property within the Town Area limits. Applicants 1, 3, 4, 7, and 10 carry on business also in addition within the Town Area limits. 4. The Petitioners have been assessed to taxes based on circumstances and property. Clause (f) of Sub-section (i) of S. 14 of the UP Town Areas Act provides for such a tax. Applicants 1, 3, 4, 7, and 10 carry on business also in addition within the Town Area limits. 4. The Petitioners have been assessed to taxes based on circumstances and property. Clause (f) of Sub-section (i) of S. 14 of the UP Town Areas Act provides for such a tax. Clause (f) runs thus: A tax on persons assessed according to their circumstances and property not exceeding such rate and subject to such limitations and restrictions as may be prescribed." Thus apart from the limitations and restrictions, which shall be considered presently, the Petitioners can be assessed to circumstances and property tax under Clause (f) of S. l4(l)of the Act. 5. The limitations and restrictions contemplated by Clause (f) of S. 14 (i) of the Act are to be found in the relevant rules framed by the State Government. Those rules are to be found at pages 86 and 87 of the Town Area Manual. Both the parties rely upon R. 3 of the rules relating to limitations and restrictions subject to which circumstances and property tax shall be levied by Town Area Committee. 6. R. 3 consists of four sub-rules. Sub-R. (1) of R. 3 runs thus: The tax assessed on the circumstances of an Assessee may be imposed on any person residing or carrying on business within the local limits of the town area: Provided that such person has so resided or carried on business for a total period of at least six months in the year of assessment. 7. Admittedly, the Petitioners are residents of Town Area, Sasni. So their case alls within sub-R. (1) of R. 3. 8. Sub-R. (2) of R. 3 is in these terms:- "No tax shall be imposed on any person whose total taxable income iss less than Rs. 200 per annum." 9. Sub-R. (3) deals with the rate of tax. Sub-R. (4) runs thus: The total amount of tax assessed on any person shall not, in any year, exceed a sum of Rs. 250 10. Explanation-For purposes of this rule "taxable income" means gross income accruing within the limits of the town area. It may be noticed that, the explanation appearing in sub-R. (4) is for purposes of this rule. It means that the explanation is to be utilised for purposes of sub-R. (2) as well. 250 10. Explanation-For purposes of this rule "taxable income" means gross income accruing within the limits of the town area. It may be noticed that, the explanation appearing in sub-R. (4) is for purposes of this rule. It means that the explanation is to be utilised for purposes of sub-R. (2) as well. When sub R. (2) is read in the light of the explanation appearing in sub-R. (4), sub-R. (2) would read somewhat as follows: No tax shall be imposed on any person whose gross income accruing within the limits of the town area is less than 200 per annum. 11. It is the Petitioner's contention that, the income of each Petitioner accruing within the limits of the town area is less than Rs. 200 per annum. 12. It is said that the total income of each Petitioner is well above Rs. 200 per annum. But the Petitioners contention is that, that income mostly accrued outside the limts of the town area. So they are not liable to be assessed to circumstances and property tax. This point was explained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit. The contents of paragraph 2 of the affidavit were not expressly denied in the counter affidavit. If the allegations in paragraph 2 of the affidavit are true, there is good reason for believing that the income of the Petitioners accrued mostly outside of the limits of the said Town Area. In the countor affidavit there was some reference to immoveable property possessed by some of the Petitioners within the Town Area. But there was no definite allegation that the income from such immovable property within the Town Area exceeded Rs. 200. There is, therefore, good reason for believing that, in the case of each of these Petitioners the income falling within the limits of the Town Area is less than Rs. 200 per annum. So u/s ub-R. (2) of R. 3 referred to above the Petitioners should not have been assessed to circumstances and property tax. 13. Mr. G. P. Bhargava appearing for the Town Area Committee relies upon Pandit Ram Narain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 1957 AWR (HC) 63. In that case it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that, On a proper construction of Cl. 13. Mr. G. P. Bhargava appearing for the Town Area Committee relies upon Pandit Ram Narain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 1957 AWR (HC) 63. In that case it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that, On a proper construction of Cl. (f) of S. 14 (1) of the UP Town Areas Act, 1914 read with the limitations and restrictions embodied in the Rules made u/s 39 of the Act, it cannot be held that residence within the Town Area was a necessary condition for the imposition of the tax on circumstances and property of a person carrying on business within that area. 14. The limitations for the imposition of a tax u/Cl. (f) are given in R 3, and residence is only one of the alternarnati e condition for the imposition of the Tax." In Ram Narain's 1957 AWR (HC) 63 case the short point before their Lordships of the Supreme Court was whether residence within a town area is necessary for the imposition of the tax u/Cl. (f). There was no occasion for considering the effect of sub/R. (2) of R. 3. I have already held above that, the Petitioner's case does fall u/s ub-R. (1) of R. 3. So the decision in Ram Narain's 1957 AWR( HC) 63 case is not of any help in the present case. 15. It is true that the Petitioners could be taxed so far as sub-R. (1) of R 3 is concerned. But such tax must not be against the prohibition of sub R. (2) of R. 3. In the present case we have seen that, there is ground for believing that the petioners were assessed to tax in contravention of sub-R. (2) of R. 3. 16. The present writ petition is however, open to several objections. Firstly, it is to be noticed that, a joint writ petition has been filed on behalf of eleven different Assessees. There were separate assessment orders; and the assesses filed separate appeals. Mr. Gopal Behari appearing for the Petitioners conceded that, the Petitioners should have filed separate writ petitions. Mr. Gopal Behari suggested that, ten Petitioners may be allowed to to withdraw the petition, and that the petition may be considered on behalf of only one Petitioner. 17. Secondly, I notice that there was delay in filing this writ petition. Mr. Gopal Behari appearing for the Petitioners conceded that, the Petitioners should have filed separate writ petitions. Mr. Gopal Behari suggested that, ten Petitioners may be allowed to to withdraw the petition, and that the petition may be considered on behalf of only one Petitioner. 17. Secondly, I notice that there was delay in filing this writ petition. The sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the appeals filed by the Petitioners on 6-12-1955. The writ petition was filed on 7-8-1956, i.e., eight months after the dismissal of their appeals by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Some sort an explanation for this delay has been given in para 6 of the supplementary affidavit filed by Inder Kumar Jain. But that explanation is unsatisfactory. 18. Thirdly, the writ petition is primarily directed against orders of assessment. But copies of the orders of assessment were not filed with the writ petition. Two such orders of assessment were placed before me today. 19. In view of the three defects pointed out above, this writ petition should be dismissed. Considering that there is ground for believing that the assessment of the Petitioners was illegal, the parties may be ordered to bear their own costs. 20. The petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution is dismissed. The stay order dated 7-8-1956 is vacated. The parties shall bear their own costs.