1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Rupa Ram & Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3974/2007 Date of Order : : 17/02/2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Manoj Bohra, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Rajvi for the respondents. BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that earlier a writ petition was filed by the very petitioners namely Natha Ram and Rupa Ram who are petitioners in the instant writ petition, being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1293/2005 against the respondents Union of India and Others which came to be dismissed as not pressed by order dated 24.8.2006. From the order annexed with the writ petition dated 24.8.2006, it is clear that the counsel for the petitioner did not press the writ petition and therefore, the same was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter by very petitioners, another writ petition came to be filed titled as Rupa Ram & Natha Ram Vs. Union of India and Ors., SBCW No.7408/2006. In the earlier 2 writ petition, petitioner Natha Ram was at serial No.1 and Rupa Ram was at serial No.2 and in the subsequent writ petition on the same set of facts and same cause of action, Rupa Ram was at serial No.1 and Natha Ram was at serial No.2, the only distinction between two writ petitions was that in the first writ petition, the first petitioner was Natha Ram and in the second writ petition the first petitioner was Rupa Ram. It appears that the petitioners have deliberately made design by changing the title, but the fact remains that in both the writ petitions, the petitioners were one and the same and cause of action was same. However, in the second writ petition, at the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the writ petition can be disposed of by permitting the petitioners to make a representation ventilating their grievances and at the request of the petitioners, they were permitted to make a representation ventilating their grievances and the respondents were directed to decide the representation expeditiously. Obviously, had this fact been brought to the notice of the Court that earlier writ petition on same facts and same cause of action by the same petitioners was dismissed as not pressed, probably, the order dated 16.1.2007 would not have been passed. The things have not come to an end. Even after this deliberate design by the petitioners, the instant third writ petition came to be filed titled as Rupa Ram and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. on the same set of facts as also same cause of action. In my view, the petitioners have designed one after 3 another to mislead the Court. Though once a writ petition came to be dismissed as not pressed, whatever the point raised therein stands rejected by the Court and yet the petitioners ventured to file successive writ petitions. In the circumstances, therefore, the successive writ petition is barred by the principle of res judicata and is not maintainable and it is therefore, dismissed with cost quantified to be Rs. 10,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioners with the Legal Aid Authority, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur within a period of two months. Stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp