1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1764/2008 (Ballarpur Industries Limited VERSUS State of Mah. Thro. Secretary Industry, Energy & Labour Deptt.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. R.B. Puranik, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : APRIL 24, 2008. Heard. This is a second round of litigation, whereby the petitioner has filed a second petition which is once again directed against the notification dated 20.07.2004. The validity of the said notification, for the second time, is called in question by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition. Following facts are not in dispute : i) That, on the earlier occasion, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition No.4606/2004 raising similar challenge to the said notification dated 20.07.2004. ii) That, the Division Bench of this Court passed a common judgment on 25.10.2005 in the bunch of writ petitions involving common question of law which includes the earlier petition filed by the petitioner. 2 iii) This Court disallowed the challenge raised by the present petitioner and dismissed the said petition as well as other connected petitions. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and the Apex Court, vide order dated 25.10.2007, passed the following order. “Against the common impugned order, special leave petition nos. 2032/2006, 3772/2006, 4757/2006 and 5744/2006 were filed and the same were dismissed by this Court. In view of dismissal of afore-mentioned special leave petitions, these special leave petitions are also dismissed. At this stage, respective counsel appearing for the petitioner in the present set of special leave petitions submit that in addition to the points decided by the High Court there were other points taken in the writ petitions before the High Court which have not been decided by the High Court. We leave it open to the petitioner, if so advised, to approach the High Court. We make it clear that liberty granted shall not 3 be treated as if we are directing the High Court to reconsider the matter. If such an application is moved by the petitioner, the High Court shall decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law.” In view of the order passed by the Apex Court, it is evident that this Court is not directed by the Apex Court to reconsider the matter afresh and the petitioner was only granted liberty to file a fresh petition in respect of the points which were taken in the earlier petition but, this Court failed to consider the same or failed to record the findings in respect thereof. The counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that though all the points which were raised in the petition were considered by the earlier Division Bench, however, the findings recorded in respect of those points are not sustainable in law, and therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. In the backdrop of the above referred facts and particularly in view of the order passed by the Apex Court, it is not open for the petitioner to file a fresh petition, on the same grounds which are raised in the earlier writ petition and which were also considered by the earlier Division 4 Bench, only because the conclusion recorded by the Division Bench on these points according to the petitioner are not sustainable in law. The present petition, according to us, is not maintainable. Hence, the same is dismissed as not maintainable. JUDGE JUDGE APTE