JUDGMENT Filing of joint petitions with the registry assigning one number when there are several petitioners who have different causes of action does not stand to reason or any semblance of order. 2. Such joint petitions only create more complications, particularly, as in some cases, it is noticed that some of the petitioners want to change counsel; some of the petitioners want to withdraw from the writ petition proceedings; some petitioners submit that the matter is settled with the respondents out of court! and some do not press the writ petition whereas some others want to have a decision on the merits of the writ petition. 3. With the writ petition bearing only one number, if some of the petitioners go out of the petition seeking for dismissal of their part of the writ petition, as withdrawn, the registry will be faced with a problem as to in respect of which petitioners petition is dismissed and in respect of which all petitioners amongst the original petitioners the petition has survived, unless each petitioner has a different number. 4. The number game has been manipulated by the registry for various reasons and this has caused unnecessary complication in the court proceedings where procedure is taking precedence and ruling roost over substance and in the bargain the real issue in the petition receding to the background. Procedure is after all handmaid to justice and is not an end in itself, nor should occupy centre stage. 5. Procedure is after all handmaid to justice and is not an end in itself, nor should occupy centre stage. 5. In the present writ petition, there are as many as twelve petitioners who claim ownership of different extents of land in different survey numbers, though located in the same village, namely, Kondireddypalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bagepally Taluk and the common factor bringing them together is the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’) with the State Government it appears having issued a notification bearing No. CI/476/SPQ/2006 Bangalore, dated 9.11.2006, gazetted on 10.11.2006 under section 3(1) of the Act (copy at Annexure-A to the writ petition) and on the same day, the State Government having also issued a further notification under section 28(1) of the Act and culminating in the issue of the notification bearing No. CI/33/SPQ/2007 Bangalore dated 7.2.2007, issued under section 28(4) of the Act (copy at Annexure-C to the writ petition) which have all been questioned in this writ petition as being illegal and therefore the petitioners are seeking for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash these notifications. 6. However, unless filing of such a single petition styled as a common petition, even by clubbing several petitioners who have different causes of action, is avoided henceforth, disarray in the registry and unnecessary complications in the court hall will continue. 7. Therefore, the Registrar General of this court is directed to bring this matter to the notice of the Hon’ble Chief Justice for ensuring necessary corrective measures are put in place immediately and henceforth in the case of petitioners who have different causes of action as in this case, petitions are filed separately or at least individual numbers are given for identifying particular number with particular writ petitioner. 8. Relevant rules (Writ Proceedings rules) may also be examined for necessary modification.