IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 113 of 2011 Weatherford Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. … Petitioner. Versus The Assistant Director of Income Tax. … Respondent. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate, with K.K.Tiwari, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. Date January 14, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned draft assessment order dated 30-12-2010 issued by the respondent. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that in similar writ petitions, this Court vide order dated 7-1-2011 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 60 of 2011 has dismissed as many as eight writ petitions by a common order and the present writ is based on similar facts. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has earlier filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2218 of 2010, Weatherford Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax and another and this Court vide order dated 28-12-2010 has passed an interim order to the effect that “as an interim measure, it is directed that till the next date of listing, the assessment proceedings may go on but no final order shall be passed in the assessment proceedings by assessing officer.” According to the petitioner, despite the interim order passed by this Court, 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 petitioner has 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 2 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 petitioner 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 petition is 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 petitioner has filed second writ petitions for the same set of facts, therefore, this Court is of the firm view that second writ petition is not maintainable when the core issues are same in the present writ petition as well as in the earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner. Accordingly, the present writ petition on the same facts os not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed outright. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to move, if so advised, appropriate application in the earlier writ petitions. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP Vacation Judge