IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.21585 of 2010 Date of decision : 1.6.2011 Sulochna Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.S.K.Tamak, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of CWP No.7890 of 2009. The challenge to the order Annexure P-2 was incorporated to the said petition and this fact has been candidly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. That writ petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous on the statement by the learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner now refutes the fact that the benefits had not been given to him and that writ petition could not have been rendered infructuous. Be that as it may, the question which is evident to the Court is that a second writ petition on the same cause of action is clearly not maintainable. Consequently, the same is dismissed. 1.6.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss