ORDER : WPSR No. 95296 of 2019 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in respect of issue of the Notification No. 6/2015-Service Tax dated 01.03.2015 published in Government of India Gazette Extraordinary Part-II Section 3, Sub-Section (i) No. 120 on 01.03.2015 and quash the same and consequently to direct the first respondent to grant exemption to the petitioner from paying the service tax in respect of the works contract service other than commercial nature rendered to the Government, local bodies, Statutory authorities etc. with effect from 01.04.2015, OR Alternatively, in the event of this Hon'ble Court upholding the impugned notification, to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the respondents 3 to 5 to pay to the petitioner the service tax and the interest and penalty if any thereon, that may be demanded by the second respondent from the petitioner in respect of the works contract service other than commercial nature rendered by the petitioner to the Government of Tamil Nadu during the period from 01.04.2015 to 30.06.2017 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice. WPSR No. 98152 of 2019 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in respect of issue of the Notification No. 6/2015-Service Tax dated 01.03.2015 published in Government of India Gazette Extraordinary Part-II Section 3, Sub-Section (i) No. 120 on 01.03.2015 and quash the same and consequently to direct the first respondent to grant exemption to the petitioner from paying the service tax in respect of the works contract service other than commercial nature rendered to the Government, local bodies, Statutory authorities etc. with effect from 01.04.2015, OR Alternatively, in the event of this Hon'ble Court upholding the impugned notification, to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the respondents 3 to 5 to pay to the petitioner the service tax and the interest and penalty if any thereon, that may be demanded by the second respondent from the petitioner in respect of the works contract service other than commercial nature rendered by the petitioner to the Government of Tamil Nadu during the period from 01.04.2015 to 30.06.2017 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice. 1. These two matters have been placed before this Court under the caption for Maintainability. 2. The prayer in these two petitions as in the writ petitions read as follows: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in respect of issue of the Notification No. 6/2015-Service Tax dated 01.03.2015 published in Government of India Gazette Extraordinary Part II Section 3, Sub-Section (i) No. 120 on 01.03.2015 and quash the same and consequently to direct the first respondent to grant exemption to the petitioner from paying the service tax in respect of the works contract service other than commercial nature rendered to the Government, local bodies, Statutory authorities etc. with effect from 01.04.2015, OR Alternatively, in the event of this Hon'ble Court upholding the impugned notification, to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the respondents 3 to 5 to pay to the petitioner the service tax and the interest and penalty if any thereon, that may be demanded by the second respondent from the petitioner in respect of the works contract service other than commercial nature rendered by the petitioner to the Government of Tamil Nadu during the period from 01.04.2015 to 30.06.2017 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.” 3. To be noted, the prayer is ad verbatim the same in both these petitions. To be noted, the prayer is ad verbatim the same in both these petitions. 4. From the case-files placed before this Court, it comes to light that these matters have been placed before this Court for deciding maintainability qua the prayers in these two petitions, as two separate prayers, one for issue of Certiorarified Mandamus and another for issue of Writ of Mandamus have been made in the same petition i.e. each of the petitions by using the connector/conjunction OR between the two prayers. 5. Post objections, while re-presenting, inter alia after mentioning that any number of prayers can be sought for in a single writ petition learned counsel has mentioned that the matters may be posted before Hon'ble Court for maintainability. 6. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that these two matters have been listed under the caption for Maintainability before this Court today. 7. As far as regulating proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned, this Court has made a set of Rules which go by the caption RULES TO REGULATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (hereinafter ‘said Rules’ for brevity). 8. To be noted, said Rules have been made by this Court in exercise of powers inter alia under Article 225 of the Constitution of India. 9. The submissions of learned counsel for petitioners in these two matters were on two aspects. 10. One aspect is that the Registry cannot decide on maintainability and that maintainability has to be decided only by way of a judicial order. The second aspect of the submissions is qua maintainability itself as it is the specific case of the learned counsel for petitioners that any number of prayers can be sought for in a single writ petition and therefore these petitions are maintainable with the prayers as mentioned above. 11. With regard to the first aspect of the matter, learned counsel for petitioners pressed into service a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Surendran vs. State by Inspector of Police, 2019 SCC Online SC 507. 12. In P. Surendran's case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that aspects of maintainability required judicial application of mind by utilising appropriate judicial standard. 13. 12. In P. Surendran's case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that aspects of maintainability required judicial application of mind by utilising appropriate judicial standard. 13. Paragraphs 3 and 9 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court (cited supra), throws light on the nature of the matter and the principles laid down and paragraphs 3 and 9 read as under: “3. The District Principal Judge by an Order dated 02.01.2019, dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached the High Court of Madras seeking anticipatory bail, but the Registry of the High Court refused to number and list the matter before the court on the following office objection:- “It may be stated how this petition for Anticipatory Bail is maintainable, since the offence is under SC/ST Act” Even though the petitioner herein replied to the aforesaid office objection, the High Court Registry rejected numbering of the petition and dismissed the Anticipatory Bail Petition on the issue of maintainability under SC/ST Act. 9. The nature of judicial function is well settled under our legal system. Judicial function is the duty to act judicially, which invests with that character. The distinguishing factor which separates administrative and judicial function is the duty and authority to act judicially. Judicial function may thus be defined as the process of considering the proposal, opposition and then arriving at a decision upon the same on consideration of facts and circumstances according to the rules of reason and justice. A Constitution Bench of five judges in Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. Meerut vs. Lakshmichand, AIR 1963 SC 677 , formulated the following criteria to ascertain whether a decision or an act is judicial function or not, in the following manner:- (1) it is in substance a determination upon investigation of a question by the application of objective standards to facts found in the light of pre-existing legal rule. (2) it declares rights or imposes upon parties obligations affecting their civil rights. (2) it declares rights or imposes upon parties obligations affecting their civil rights. (3) that the investigation is subject to certain procedural attributes contemplating an opportunity of presenting its case to a party, ascertainment of facts by means of evidence if a dispute be on questions of fact, and if the dispute be on question of law on the presentation of legal argument and a decision resulting in the disposal of the matter on findings based upon those questions of law and fact.” (Underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis and highlighting is as in the hard copy of SCC Online placed before this Court) 14. A perusal of paragraph 3 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court (cited supra) reveals that it is a case where the High Court Registry itself rejected numbering of a petition and dismissed the Anticipatory Bail petition on the issue of maintainability. 15. Therefore, this P. Sunrendran's case does not help the petitioners' case in the instant cases as in the instant cases, the Registry has not rejected the petitioners' petitions. On the contrary, Registry has listed the matter before this Court under the caption for Maintainability, seeking judicial orders of this Court regarding maintainability of these petitions. 16. Therefore, maintainability issue is now being decided by this Court by a judicial order i.e. vide this order and hence P. Surendran's case does not help advance the case of the petitioners in these two matters. 17. On the contrary, in the considered view of this Court, the procedure adopted by the Registry in the instant case, is in tune with P. Surendran's principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as the Registry has only placed the matters before this Court for judicial orders regarding maintainability and that is also on the basis of an endorsement made by learned counsel for petitioners as mentioned supra. For the purpose of clarity and specificity, the said endorsement of learned counsel for petitioners is reproduced infra and the same reads as under: “If Registry is not satisfied post before the Honourable Court for Maintainability. (Signed on 09.08.2019) C. Rajapandiyan, Counsel for Petitioner.” 18. Therefore, this puts an end to the first aspect of submissions of learned counsel qua these matters. 19. This takes us to the second aspect of the submissions regarding maintainability which shall now be decided by this judicial order. 20. (Signed on 09.08.2019) C. Rajapandiyan, Counsel for Petitioner.” 18. Therefore, this puts an end to the first aspect of submissions of learned counsel qua these matters. 19. This takes us to the second aspect of the submissions regarding maintainability which shall now be decided by this judicial order. 20. As already alluded supra, there is no disputation that there are two prayers in each of these petitions. 21. There is also no disputation or disagreement that the two prayers are independent of one another as it is the specific and emphatic submission of learned counsel that they are alternate prayers. It follows as a sequitur that two distinct prayers have been made as it is not disputed that the two prayers are alternate prayers. As already mentioned supra, one is a prayer seeking issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus and the other is a prayer seeking issue of Writ of Mandamus. 22. Adverting to Rule 8 of said Rules, it is submitted by learned counsel that provisions of Rules 9 to 11 of Order IV of 1965 Appellate Side Rules of this Court shall be made applicable to petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution so far as may be applicable. Saying so, learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to Rule 9 of Order IV of Appellate Side Rules which reads as under: “(1) Every proceeding which is not instituted in conformity with the provisions of the Code, or of these rules or of any special enactment or of the rules applicable to it, shall be returned to the party or the practitioner concerned for amendment and representation. Unless the Registrar prescribes a shorter period, the proceeding shall be represented after compliance with all the defects pointed out, within ten days after the notification of the defect, on the Notice-Board of the Court. (2) Every proceeding represented either without rectifying all the defects pointed out or after the expiry of the time allowed under the preceding sub-rule should be accompanied by a petition for extension of time supported by an affidavit, where necessary. (3) The period prescribed for representation shall be computed afresh for each return pointing out fresh defects. (4) Proceedings represented after a period of three months after the expiry of time allowed will be posted before Court marked, not represented in time - for orders.” 23. (3) The period prescribed for representation shall be computed afresh for each return pointing out fresh defects. (4) Proceedings represented after a period of three months after the expiry of time allowed will be posted before Court marked, not represented in time - for orders.” 23. Adverting to sub-Rule (1), it was submitted that instant writ petitions are not in contravention of said Rules. 24. Learned counsel also submitted that under similar circumstances, a judicial order directing a writ petition to be numbered was made on 26.10.2010 in WPSR No. 105565 of 2010. However, learned counsel was not able to produce a copy of the order. Therefore, this Court summoned the case-file in WPSR No. 105565 of 2010 and permitted the learned counsel for petitioners to peruse the case-file and the said order. 25. A careful perusal of the said order dated 26.10.2010 made by a Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court reveals that the matters are not identical. In other words, it is not identical set of prayers. 26. However, the distinct question was whether a Writ of Declaration and Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus being sought together in one writ petition. 27. A careful perusal of the aforementioned order reveals that the Hon'ble Single Judge has clearly held that the Court is not convinced on the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. To be noted learned counsel before this Court now was the counsel for petitioners in that matter also. However, in view of the other similar matter having been taken on file, the Hon'ble Single Judge directed the writ petition to be numbered making it clear that the numbering of the writ petition itself is subject to maintainability. This is articulated in paragraph-6 of the said order which reads as under: “6. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, called for the records from the Registry to verify whether the relief sought for in that writ petition is similar to the one sought for in the present writ petition. It is seen in that writ petition that a writ of declaration as well as writ of certiorarified mandamus is prayed for. This Court raised a strong issue as to how three writs, namely, Writ of Declaration, Writ of Certiorari and Writ of Mandamus are to be clubbed together in one single writ petition. It is seen in that writ petition that a writ of declaration as well as writ of certiorarified mandamus is prayed for. This Court raised a strong issue as to how three writs, namely, Writ of Declaration, Writ of Certiorari and Writ of Mandamus are to be clubbed together in one single writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner would insistently and consistently emphasize on the words "any of them" before this Court as provided in the Constitution. Though this Court is not convinced on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the reason that the earlier writ petition has been admitted by this Court in W.P. No. 15156 of 2010, Registry is directed to number the writ petition and post it for admission on 29.10.2010. It is made clear that this petition is numbered, subject to the maintainability of the writ petition.” (Underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis and highlight) 28. One more aspect with regard to 26.10.2010 order is that reliance had been placed on Rule 2 of the said Rules to regulate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, published on 02.01.2002 in the Gazette (hereinafter ‘new Rules’ for clarity). 29. There is no disputation that this new Rules have been kept in abeyance and therefore objections predicated on Rule 2 of new Rules does not arise in these cases on hand. 30. Thereafter, learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to Clause 37 of Letters Patent which deals with regulations of proceedings and pressed into service an order made by another Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in the Madurai Bench in P.K. Sri Ram vs. The Sourashtra Higher Secondary School, 2012 (4) CTC 489 . Learned counsel submitted that vide P.K. Sri Ram principle, underlying principles in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC for brevity) can be applied in the absence of direct codification of a particular point. 31. Saying so, learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to "Order II of Rule 2" of CPC. Order II of Rule 2 deals with a situation where several reliefs can be claimed by the plaintiff qua the same cause of action and when the plaintiff chooses to claim only some of those reliefs without claiming all the reliefs. 31. Saying so, learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to "Order II of Rule 2" of CPC. Order II of Rule 2 deals with a situation where several reliefs can be claimed by the plaintiff qua the same cause of action and when the plaintiff chooses to claim only some of those reliefs without claiming all the reliefs. In such a scenario, the plaintiff has to obtain prior leave of the Court for not claiming some of the reliefs and preserving plaintiff's rights qua such reliefs, though it arises out of the same cause of action. In the considered view of this Court, it does not aid the petitioners in any manner and therefore, this Court does not delve into the question as to whether principles of CPC can be made applicable to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 32. In the cases on hand, this Court is clear in its mind that the prayer and the alternate prayer, i.e. two prayers do not arise out of the same cause of action. It is more so as there is no disputation that cause of action for the second alternate prayer if at all will arise only after the first prayer is decided one way or the other. Therefore, the argument predicated on Order II Rule 2 CPC is clearly misconceived. 33. Another order made by another Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in M. Ramachandran vs. M. Palani [order pronounced on 28.11.2018 in CRP (PD) No. 2207 of 2016] was also pressed into service. That was a case where this Court exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, observed that the Subordinate Court should ensure that questions regarding admissibility of unregistered documents are not left in the realm of Registry of the Subordinate Court. This is in tune and tandem with P. Surendran principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In other words, questions pertaining to admissibility of unregistered documents or the same being pressed into service in a suit has to be decided by way of a judicial order and should not be left to the Registry is the principle. There is no difficulty with regard to this proposition but it does not aid the petitioners in the instant cases. 34. This brings us back to the two prayers in each of the petitions which the petitioners are now seeking. 35. There is no difficulty with regard to this proposition but it does not aid the petitioners in the instant cases. 34. This brings us back to the two prayers in each of the petitions which the petitioners are now seeking. 35. Petitioners have assailed a Notification dated 01.03.2015 which pertains to exemption from paying service tax in respect of works contract service other than commercial nature rendered to Government, Local Bodies, Statutory Authorities etc. and a consequential direction to first respondent to exempt the petitioners from paying the service tax. What is of importance/significance is, if these prayers are sustained that would be the end of the matters as petitioners or the entity which is giving the work contracts need not pay service tax. However, if it is negatived, service tax has to be paid. Thereafter only, the dispute (if at all) as to who has to absorb the service tax component/liability, i.e. as to whether it is the contractor, namely, petitioners or the entity which engaged service contractor will arise. It comes to light that this aspect is based on the argument that the rates were quoted by the Contractor without including service tax. In the considered view of this Court, this is a completely separate lis by itself. 36. Merely because that dispute is likely to arise if the challenge to the Notification is not sustained, it cannot be gain said that these two prayers can be made alternatively in the same writ petition in one go. 37. This takes us back to said Rules. 38. From a perusal of said Rules, more particularly, Rules 1 and 2 it emerges clearly that the reference to nature of "relief sought" for in singular. There is no reference to "reliefs" in plural. 39. This Court is also examined the larger canvass qua this aspect of the matter. If petitioners are permitted to make multiple prayers in one writ petition, it can lead to complexities and may even lead to chaotic situations. Each prayer will depend on different set of arguments and some arguments will be unique qua a prayer or some prayers and multiple counter-affidavits may have to be filed. Moreover, a prayer cannot be made in anticipation of a particular outcome. 40. Each prayer will depend on different set of arguments and some arguments will be unique qua a prayer or some prayers and multiple counter-affidavits may have to be filed. Moreover, a prayer cannot be made in anticipation of a particular outcome. 40. To be noted, this Court entertains a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus i.e. Writs Certiorari and Mandamus rolled into one though Constitution recognises them as to two separate writs. This is done in cases where the Mandamus limb of the prayer is a consequential prayer. This Court has evolved such a procedure over the years and one of the cardinal principles is avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. In the considered view of this Court, attempt to advance avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings argument in instant cases will tantamount to fitting a square peg in a round hole as in instant cases the two prayers are clearly distinct alternate prayers. 41. Therefore, in the light of facts and circumstances of cases on hand, this Court holds that the petitions containing two alternate prayers are not maintainable. 42. In the course of arguments, as a concluding submission, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that if this Court does not agree with the petitioners' submission regarding maintainability, petitioners may be permitted to bring up the Certiorarified Mandamus prayer assailing 01.03.2015 Notification alone deleting the Mandamus prayer and preserving petitioners' rights to seek Mandamus later. There is no difficulty in acceding to this request. Prayer for Certiorarified Mandamus alone can be numbered deleting the alternate Mandamus prayer directing respondents 3 to 5 to pay the service tax in the event of dismissal of Certiorarified Mandamus. If a suitable endorsement to this effect is made by learned counsel in the case-file, Registry to number the Certiorarified Mandamus prayer alone as one writ petition subject of course to there being no other objections or in other words, subject to other requirements being in order.