THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A. No.1085 OF 2011 DATED:1-12-2011 Between: D. Suryanarayana Raju … Appellant And The Government of India represented through The Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Roads, Transport & Highways, New Delhi and four others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1085 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. This is the fourth writ petition ﬁled by the appellant, virtually on the same subject. 2. The respondents had issued a notice under Section 3- A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for acquisition of some land. The appellant challenged the notiﬁcation issued by the respondents by ﬁling Writ Petition No. 980 of 2010. That writ petition was ﬁled by M/s. Dano Vaccines & Biologicals (P) Ltd., of which, the appellant is the Chairman and Managing Director and by Dano Pharma partnership ﬁrm of which the appellant’s son is the Managing Partner. 3. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 27.1.2010 on the ground that the writ petitioner had ﬁled objections to the acquisition notification. 4. Thereafter, a second writ petition was ﬁled by the same parties, being Writ Petition No. 9305 of 2010. We are told that in the second writ petition, the notiﬁcation issued under Sections 3-D and 3-G of the Act were challenged. We are further told that the second writ petition was disposed of on 28.4.2010 as infructuous. 5. Thereafter, they ﬁled a third writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 10269 of 2010 seeking cancellation of the notiﬁcation issued by the respondents under Section 3-G of the Act. The third writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 6.10.2010. We are told by learned counsel for the appellant that a writ appeal is pending against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 6.10.2010. 6. Now the appellant being the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. Dano Vaccines & Biologicals Pvt. Ltd., has ﬁled the fourth writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 29362 of 2011 challenging the original notiﬁcation issued under Section 3-A(1) of the Act. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the order under appeal. It was held by the learned Single Judge and in our opinion, quite rightly that since the challenge to the declaration issued under Section 3-G of the Act was rejected in Writ Petition No. 10269 of 2010, the appellant cannot now challenge the earlier notiﬁcation issued under Section 3- A(1) of the Act. It was also held that the principles of Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C. as well as the doctrine of constructive res judicata would come into play. 7. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the challenge made by the present appellant. We cannot appreciate successive writ petitions being ﬁled by the appellant either in his own name or in the name of his son or in the name of his company on the same subject. In our opinion, this would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and such kind of litigation must deﬁnitely be discouraged. It was open to the appellant to challenge the notiﬁcation issued under Section 3-A(1) of the Act on earlier occasions but he failed to do so. The subsequent notiﬁcation issued under Section 3-G of the Act having been upheld, the appellant cannot now be allowed to re-open the proceedings and put the clock back. 7. We decline to interfere in the writ appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. The interim application is also dismissed. MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 1-12-2011 Pnb