IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 60 of 2011 M/s GIL Mauritius Holdings Limited. … Petitioner. Versus The Assistant Director of Income Tax. … Respondent. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. WITH (1) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 64 of 2011 M/s Aker Solutions (Services) Pte Limited. … Petitioner. Versus The Assistant Director of Income Tax. … Respondent. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. (2)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 65 of 2011 M/s Varco International Pte Limited. … Petitioner. Versus The Assistant Director of Income Tax. … Respondent. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. (3)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 66 of 2011 M/s PGS Geophysical AS. … Petitioner. Versus The Assistant Director of Income Tax. … Respondent. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. (4)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 67 of 2011 M/s Kvaerner Energy Ltd. … Petitioner. Versus The Assistant Director of Income Tax. … Respondent. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. 2 (5)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 68 of 2011 M/s PGS Explorataion (UK) Limited. … Petitioner. Versus The Assistant Director of Income Tax. … Respondent. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. (6)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 89 of 2011 M/s WesternGeco International Ltd.. … Petitioner. Versus The Additional Director of Income Tax. … Respondent. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. and (7)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 90 of 2011 M/s Schlumberger Asia Services Limited. … Petitioner. Versus The Additional Director of Income Tax. … Respondent. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. Date January 07, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Since the controversy involved in all these writ petitions is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided by this common order. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 60 of 2011, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act dated 30-12- 2010 (Annexure P-6) being illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 64 of 2011, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act dated 30-12- 3 2010 (Annexure P-6) being illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 65 of 2011, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act dated 31-12-2010 (Annexure P-7) being illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 66 of 2011, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act dated 30-12- 2010 (Annexure P-6) being illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 67 of 2011, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act dated 30-12- 2010 (Annexure P-6) being illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 68 of 2011, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act dated 31-12-2010 (Annexure P-6) being illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 89 of 2011, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act dated 29-03-2010 (Annexure P-5) being illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 90 of 2011, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act dated 30-12-2010 (Annexure P-5) being illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction. The petitioners have stated that the petitioners have earlier filed a separate writ petition in each case on the same set of facts and this Court in each of the earlier writ petitions, mentioned in the memo of writ petition, has passed an interim order to the effect that till the next date of listing, the assessment proceedings may go on but no final order shall be passed in the assessment proceeding. 4 The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions on the ground that this Court has passed an interim order that no final order shall be passed in the assessment, but even then the Assessing Officer has passed a draft order under Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, against which, as per provision of sub-section (2), the petitioners have option to file objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (for short DRP) and thereafter the DRP shall issue direction to the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5) will pass the assessment order under sub-section (13) of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has further contended that since the Court has formed a prima facie opinion and issued notice to the respondent on jurisdictional point on the change of opinion, this exercise would be futile since the writ petitions are pending before this Court. Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court, 1952 reads as under:- “7. No second application on same facts.- Where an application has been rejected, it shall not be competent for the applicant to make a second application on the same facts.” Admittedly the petitioners have filed second writ petitions for the same set of facts, therefore, this Court is of the firm view that second writ petitions are not maintainable when the core issues are same in the present writ petitions as well as in the earlier writ petitions preferred by the petitioners. Accordingly, the present writ petitions on the same facts are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed outright. All these writ petitions are dismissed in limine. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to move, if so advised, appropriate applications in the earlier writ petitions. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP