1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION W.P NO. 97 OF 2009 Shoaib alias Richie Sequira ..Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ..Respondents Petitioner-in person present. Mr. M.S. Sethna,Sr. Counsel with Mr. A.M. Sethna for Respondent No.1. Mr. V.R. Dhond with Mr. Dhiraj Mhetre i.b Mahernosh Humranwala for Respondent No. 2. Mr. Biju Jaccob i/by Mr. O.A. Das for Respondent Nos. 3,7, & 12. Mr. J.K. Bhatia for Respondent No.9. Ms. Gaurongi Pujara i/by L. & Co. for Respondent No.8 Mr. Sandeep Mahadik i/b Bhasin & Co. for respondent No.10. Mr. Akash Acharya i/b S.N. Acharya for Respondent No.16. Mr. Satish Raut i/by Consulta Juris for Respondent No. 17. Mrs. M.R. Patel for Respondent No.20. Ms. Manish Raut i/b Bhave & Co. for Respondent Nos. 21 to 20. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : 7TH APRIL, 2010. P.C. 1 The petitioner earlier approached this Court by Writ Petition PIL No. 17 of 2009 which came to be disposed of by order dated 2nd April, 2009. No liberty was granted to file a fresh petition in respect of the same subject matter. 2 The petitioner now has filed second petition and has sought same 2 relief as they sought for in the earlier petition. 3 It is pointed out on behalf of the petitioner who appeared in person that on 17th September, 2009, a direction was given to add two other parties. 4 The question for consideration before us is whether in the absence of this Court granting leave to file a fresh petition in respect of the same cause of action and the same reliefs whether we should entertain the second petition. 5 The other aspect of the matter is that writ Petition No. 291 of 1998 in the matter of common cause is pending before the Supreme Court. The reliefs sought in that petition though may not been identical are similar. The petition is still pending. 6 In our opinion therefore, considering the above facts, this Court does not find that to be a fit case to entertain the second writ petition in respect of the same cause of action and same reliefs which this Court earlier refused to entertain. 7 It is open to the petitioner, if advised to move the Hon'ble Supreme Court for intervention if he is entitled in the common cause matter. With the above observations petition is disposed of. (F.I. REBELLO J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.) 3