1 wp4389.10.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4389 OF 2010 Leela Infrastructure Limited ......Petitioners. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ......Respondents. Mr. Suresh Dubey for the Petitioners. Mr. S.N. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Pravin Samdani, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Pranaya Goyal i/by M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondent Nos. 9 and 10. Mr. S.U. Dhakephalkar for Respondent Nos. 4 to 8. CORAM :- D.D. SINHA AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE :- 6 SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the learned counsel for the Respondents and the Assistant Government Pleader for the State. 2 At the outset it is brought to the notice of this Court that the earlier Petition filed by the Petitioners bearing No. 1807 of 2009 involving identical cause of action came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 6 January 2010 which reads thus- 2 wp4389.10.sxw ssm “Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present Petition with a prayer that all the issues involved in the Petition may be kept open. Writ Petition disposed of as withdrawn by keeping all the issues open.” 3 The learned counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that since the issues involved in the earlier Petition were kept open, the Petitioners filed the present Petition for identical relief which was prayed in the earlier Petition. 4 At the outset, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 has raised the preliminary issue about the maintainability of the Petition. It is submitted that vide order dated 6 January 2010, the Writ Petition No. 1807 of 2009 came to be disposed of as withdrawn only by keeping all the issues open. There was no liberty granted by this Court to the Petitioners to file a fresh Petition in this Court involving identical/same cause of action involved in the earlier Petition. It is therefore prayed that the present Petition is not maintainable. 5 The learned counsel for the Petitioners, on the other hand, has submitted that since the issues are kept open, the Petitioners are entitled to file a fresh Petition based on similar cause of action and 3 wp4389.10.sxw ssm hence the present Petition. 6 We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the order dated 6 January 2010 passed by this Court. (referred to hereinabove) 7 The perusal of the order dated 6 January 2010 clearly demonstrate that the Petition was disposed of as withdrawn only by keeping the issues open and there was no liberty granted by this Court to the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1807 of 2009 to file a fresh Petition in this Court on the same cause of action which was involved in the said Writ Petition. 8 For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable. The same is disposed of as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.D. SINHA, J.)