CWP No. 22275 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22275 of 2010 Date of Decision: 15.12.2010 Mohammad Javed and others ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral) The challenge in the present writ petition filed as PIL is to the order dated 17.2.2010 whereby the Government had accorded approval to the Gram Panchayat of village Badh Malik, for the exchange of land of grave yard/cremation ground with the land belonging to HSIDC. 2. This is a second round of litigation. At earlier point of time, Rajesh and 13 other residents of same locality and village of which the present petitioners are also resident, had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 8970 of 2010 challenging order dated 17.2.2010, which CWP No. 22275 of 2010 [2] is also impugned in the present writ petition. That writ petition was dismissed on 14.7.2010 by a Division Bench of this Court by passing a reasoned order. Feeling dissatisfied by the said order, the writ petitioners in that case went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 27057 of 2010 which was dismissed on 4.10.2010. The present writ petition has been filed by changing the writ petitioners, namely, Mohammad Javed, Salauddin and Ali Sher who were not petitioners in the earlier writ petition. 3. On going through the pleadings set out by the petitioners, we find that the issue raised in the present petition was earlier dealt with by this Court in detail in Civil Writ Petition No. 8970 of 2010 and S.L.P. against that order was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to explain as to how the present writ petition for the same cause of action which has already been dealt with by this Court in earlier round of litigation, is maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the S.L.P. had given certain oral observations permitting to take additional grounds before this Court in the fresh writ petition and hence the present writ petition as PIL has been filed which is maintainable. 5. It is well settled law that oral observations of Court are never allowed to be taken as a ground for filing a petition for the same cause of action which has gone into by the Court in earlier round of litigation. Another writ for the same cause of action based on the oral observations of Court cannot be taken as a ground for filing CWP No. 22275 of 2010 [3] fresh writ petition challenging the same action/orders. Another aspect for not accepting the plea urged by the counsel for the petitioners is that neither the present petitioners were party before the Hon'ble Supreme Court nor the counsel representing them in this case had appeared in that SLP. In such circumstances, a plea cannot be raised on behalf of the petitioners regarding oral observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. Consequently, we are of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable on the basis of the alleged observations, if any, given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, are unable to interfere in the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE (RANJAN GOGOI) 15.12.2010 JUDGE 'ravinder'