giNGLE $E§3€M THE HIGH ‘COURT OF CHHATTIsG‘A‘RH AT BILASP g CHHATTlSGARtn ‘ . WRIT PETlTlON {S l NQ. §28L> I 2011 Ram‘Nare$h Tandon, aged about 45 years. Sdn of late Shri Sukram, resident of QtrNo. ZO-E, Street No.32, Sector 10, Bhilai, District Durg (CG). VERsus" PETITIONER 1K3tateof Chh'attisgarh through the . ‘Sec’retary,‘D.epartment of Revenue, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2i The Collector (Land Record), Dur Chha’ctisgarh), RESPONDENTS ‘ V ,a’ : g ( 3.x“ The Teheildar, Patan, District — Durg ( C G ), \VA 4.“ Nilkamal Soni, Son of not knowto the petitioner,. Patwari, Halka No.45, -Achod, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District DUFQ ( CG), i. ." . .... WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22§ Ge “rt-IE CONSTiTUTiON OF iNDrA. ’_ I @ EFORE UR B §3ETETIONER EEG}? COE IRT {)F CHHATTISGARH AT RH ,ASP‘i 7R WRET ?ETITION (S) No 52W of 201i Ram Narésh Tandon VER ST L ‘ RES?ONDENTS : Staie of Chjlatiisgai‘h «3a Oihers. WET PETTTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONS’i‘I’i‘ETIGN OF ENDIA SB: Hon’hk Shri Satish K. Agnihmri. J. Present: Shri T.K.Tiwari? Au‘vbcate 'i‘m the peiitimer. Shx‘i Aim: Sao, Government Aévocaté fm‘ the State/respondent N0. 1 t0 3 “y L)n ORBER {Passed 3n 22‘13'éay afgeptember, 20 3}} By mm petiiion, the pe‘iitimmr seeks wagging of ’{he order dafmi 1:3:{3’7‘2011 (Amsxure E’fw) Whersby: ma pgtitomer, wmkmg 2% ?a:wari ai Patwari E'IaLka. No; Q4§ Parxhmim Tami! Patan has bean ‘iransfarrad to Paiwari Halka Nu 45, Achand9 '?a&1si1 Gumiximsshi on administraiive gmmch. At iha vary ou‘ixg Earned cotmsei ayysaring far The Siam/respondent NQK ‘1 to 3 submits that 1211a patitiener had aaflier fileci a. writ petition being “13(8) N0. 63868/2611? which was :iismisssd on 25.98.2011 0n thé gound of neg-joinéar of prom: gmmss, Thus; ihis getitiom Wikhout takmg leave ofthe court to fila a $11bsequsnt petitim: for thg Same cause of action ssakjllg wme I €£is£ Shri Tiwarii leamed counsei appearing for the peiiiiomr submits though? no pmm'ssion to m6 a frash petiiiion was soughi befora Withérawmg the garligr petiiiem hawgver, sinca ihe grisvance 0f fhe petitioner was not red€$§$s§d¢ iha petitioner haq .Eled €he insiam: petition“ v 011 perusal, it. is found that. the earlier Wm. peiitien was filed 0n the same grounds? which was thsmawed on the gouge ofnm—jeinéer 0f greeer parEies and iimhe; mace there was 110 chalierige :0 fhe impugnee order on' any pemesible legai gmun¢ 1:}?11s5 the eeiiiéen was éismissed on merit also, Uh l)a Law or: the point is. well saiiiedin Sargja Trampar! ‘S‘ervz‘ce Vs. Sfaz‘é Tmmpar: Avpeo’l {e Tribzmai, MP. Gwagz'cr, and oa’ ers‘, whgre afier withdrawal 'of thé @arlier writ patition (EILENO, 294.5 of $85)? withem seeking iibmy to fiie a. fresh writ 196mm; tha second writ yatitien (MENO, 188 of 1986). was med. the High (1mm; dismissed the second Wm. getitioa fiiad fer 1%}? sams cause of action. on 1116 gotmd mat the earliar Wm yefition was mt withdrawn with permission {to {lie a. fresh peiition; Ho’bie Smommo Court held m umier; . 1 ~ ‘= (7987) tié’scc 5 \ J v‘ . x’l ‘ , “5.11“; this caee we aye calied upon to consider ihe e§act of foe Wiihdxawai of the writ petitioo iEied under Ameies 226r22 I of‘ihe Coilstitmioa of inéia Wiihout {he perm ssioe. of the Higl Calif: $0 fiie a fresh peiition. The provisieas of the Code ofCivii LProeedure: 3908 (hei'einafter / ’7 {eien‘eu 9. i i0 as “die Code’) are 110i in ierms appiieabie to the wrii. proceedmgs alihotlgl the garocedure prescribed {herein as far a5 ii cam be made ayyiieabie is followeci by the i—Iigh C0313“: in disposing of tile wrii petitione. ,3 r7 x, “.“The iaw confers ugmn a. maxi no rights or eeoefrts which he (ioes noi desire. Whoever waives, abandoos or (iisciaims a, right Wiii ioose i1. E11 order i0 prevent a iiiigani from aliasing Lhe oroeess of the com? by instimting suits again and again en file same eauee of aciien wiiiieiat any good reason the Corie ineists that he should ebaain the permission ei‘ ihe wuri 19 faie a fresh suite 3, “iii is common imowieoge that very ofien afeer a Wfit petition is heard for some time whee the pefitioner or his eouosel iiiiés thai iihe eourt is; not likeiy to pass an omer . aamitiing i iiie yetition: request. is made by the petitioner or by iais counsei i0 eemiit foe geiiiioner to Withdraw :§"om the wrii edition without seeking pemaissioai ‘m insiiiuie a fresh writ gaeiiiion. A Court which is onwiiiing to admit the petition weuici not ordinariiy gram iiberly ‘w {He a fresh petition while it may just agee to yermii Kile Withdrawai ofthe peiitiori. 1t is piaiil thai when once a, writ peiiiion iiied iii a. High Court, is withdrawn by the petitioner himseif he is oreoiuded from iiiiiig an apyeai against the oriier paesed in the writ petition because he 3H cammt be considtamd as a. party aggieved §3y ihe m‘der pag$ed by ihe High Court.” I (1 9g?) z ecc 534 6‘ Hon’bie Supreme Court. it; fivinash Nagm Va Navoa‘qya E’Myalay Samitz‘ and of ers2 held as wdsr : “13: The High Court a150 was rigm in its camiusion that tha sscumi wrii peliiicn is 110i maintainabls as me yrincipie of comtmetiw res judicam wouid appiy. He iEiad ihe wrii gaiitiqn in iirst imiance but withdrew the: same Withoui of thg {301111. wiih to fik thg munission libart‘y secmld writ peiiiion which was dismiswd. Tharafom, {hé secogd writ paition is mt maimainabie as iwid by iha High Court in applying the corrcci princiyls of iawg Thus cmsidaea’ we fine? 310 merii in the ammal for misrference.” 7‘ in View of the abdve settied positien of law? singa the eaxlier writ filed the before this Calm; the petition was by getit‘ioner against. Same cause of action, for the <ame reiief. far which the ing‘an‘t petitior: has been filed befere athjs Comt? wae diemiseed aad furthen no iibexty m file a fresh getition before ih.. Ceim. was 8‘ either prayed or gamed by this {101111.15 ?h1~ writ. yefi‘iieng being second petitien, is net. maimainable: Aeeordingiy§ this Writ getitioe is dismissed" 9‘ Ne order asto em“ Sd/. Satish K' Agnihom'