JUDGMENT
D.K. Seth, J.
1. Mr Yatindra Singh, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 assisted by Mr K.R. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, raises a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that petitioner’s Writ Petition No. 42253 of 1993 filed on the same cause of action for the same relief having been dismissed as withdrawn, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain a second writ petition Mr S.P. Gupta, however, had opposed the said contention and pointed out that earlier writ petition having been dismissed as withdrawn at that stage, the same will not affect maintainability of this writ petition.
2. Both the learned Counsel had, however, addressed the Court on merits of the case with regard to fixation of seniority between the petitioner, a direct recruit alleging to be of the same year above the regularised candidates. Since a preliminary objection has been mised, before entering into merits of the case, let us examine the merit of the preliminary objection.
3. For the purpose of examining preliminary objection, it would be necessary to refer to the facts as would be relevant for such purpose. In as much as without reference to the facts, it is not possible to decide the preliminary objection in the present case. As such brief facts as are necessary for the present purpose, are being summarised as hereinafter.
4. A seniority list dated 1-9-1988 of the Deputy Jailors was issued in which the petitioner’s name was placed below serial No. 231. The petitioner alleges that pursuant to an advertisement issued in February 1979, the petitioner was selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission sometimes in April 1981 and was appointed as Assistant Jailor in October 1981, whereas the persons figuring at serial No. 153 to 231 of the said seniority list, were regularised under the provisions of U.P. Regularisation of Adhoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979. By reason of rule, such persons are to be placed below the persons appointed in accordance with the relevant Service Rules. The petitioner having been recruited according to the service rules namely U.P. Jail Executive Subordinate (Non-gazetted) Service Rules, 1980, is eligible to be placed above the aforesaid regularised candidates by reason of Rule 5 read with explanation thereof and U.P. Government Servant Senority Rules, 1991 which provides in the second proviso that the persons appointed on the result of subsequent selection shall be junior to the persons appointed on the result of previous selection and that where same year separate selections for regular and emergency recruitments are made, the selection for regular recruitment shall be deemed to be the previous selection. Relying on the second proviso read with explanation to Rule 5 of the 1991 Rules, the petitioner claims that the persons at serial No. 153 to 231 being regularised candidates cannot be placed above the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said seniority list dated 1- 9-88, the petitioner had made a representation on 4-1-1992. The said representation was rejected by an order dated 11th August, 1992. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation which was rejected by an order dated 29-4- 1993. Thereupon, the petitioner had moved writ petition No. 42253 of 1993. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn at that stage by an order dated 27- 10-93. The petitioner had presented this writ petition on 28th February, 1994.
5. On the question of maintainability, Mr. Yatindra Singh, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has raised two objections. First one is the question of maintainability of a second writ petition and the second one is on account of suppression of material facts as well as deliberate mis-statement amounting to purgery.
6. Allahabad High Court Rules in Chapter XXII, Rules 7 provides that “where an application has been rejected, it shall not be competent for the applicant to make a second application on the same facts. In case of Pradeep Goval v. Regional Manager, Region 11, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Meerut, (1992) 1 UPLBEC 223, this Court had held that even if the petitioner withdraws the writ petition without permission to file a fresh writ petition, the second writ petition in respect of the same cause of action in the High Court, is not maintainable. In the said case, it was further held that filing of a writ petition on the same facts is not only an abuse of process of law but is also against public policy.
7. In case of S. Tripathi v. Benaras Hindu University, (1993) 1 UPLBEC 448, it has been reiterated that a second writ petition is not competent under Rule 7, Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules.
8. Mr. Yatindra Singh had relied on the various decisions in support of his above contention. He relied on the decision in the case of Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane and Ors., 1996 (4) SCC 297. In paragraph 29 in the said decision it was observed that the petitioner in the said case had moved one writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, where he had made certain statement, which was contradicted in the subsequent writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court. On account of pendency of the earlier writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the second writ petition, where contradictory statement was made, was held not to be maintainable. The said decision was sought to be distinguished by Mr S.P. Gupta on the ground that the facts of the said case are different from those of the present one. Inasmuch as the earlier writ petition in the said case was still pending. Whereas, in the present case, the earlier writ petition stood withdrawn at a that stage.
9. The. above decision, apparently may not help us in the facts and circumstances of the present case, though on account of reason different from that advanced by Mr S.P. Gupta. Inasmuch as Rule 7, Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules prescribes non-maintainability of second application on the same facts, where the earlier petition has been rejected. The decision in the case of Oswal Agro Furane (supra), deals with a case pending in two different High Courts, which ratio may not be attracted in the present case. But on the other hand, it lays down a general principle even without any such specific rules of any Court that two writ petitions on the same facts cannot be maintained on the ground of public policy.
10. Mr Yatindra Singh next relied on the decision in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Ramashyraya Yadav and Anr., 1996 (3) SCC 332, which in paragraph 5 had held that non-disclosure of material facts in the subsequent proceedings disentitles the petitioner to get any equitable relief from the Court. In the said case, by virtue of an interim order granted in earlier writ petition on the same facts, the petitioners were continuing in service, while in the second writ petition, the writ petitioner had claimed the same scale of pay of the regular employees on the ground of their such continuance. This ratio was also sought to be distinguished by Mr. S.P. Gupta on the ground that in the present writ petition, the petitioner had not claimed any such relief and the non-disclosure of the earlier writ petition has not worked any prejudice against the respondents. In my view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said decision may not be of any help.
11. Mr S.P. Gupta had contended that the earlier writ petition having been dismissed as withdrawn, the principle of resjudicata cannot be attracted since no issues were decided. This point has not been opposed by Mr Yatindra Singh. There is no doubt that dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn will not operate as resjudicata since no issue was decided. But the question is not a question of resjudicata. It is a question of public policy. Here, in this case, the petitioner did not disclose the fact of his moving an earlier writ petition. This fact is not disputed by Mr. S.P. Gupta. He contends that the withdrawal was made at that stage. Therefore, it was open to the petitioner to move the writ petition at a subsequent stage. Admittedly, in the present writ petition, nothing has been disclosed as to how at the subsequent stage when the second writ petition has been moved, the situation has changed as it stood on the date of dismissal of the earlier writ petition. A subsequent stage does not mean a latter point of time. But it means a stage that had developed subsequent to the order of dismissal giving rise to a new stage different from the stage where the writ petition was withdrawn. In case there are further development after the stage when the writ petition was dismissed resulting into a new stage different from the earlier stage, a writ petition can very will, be maintained, since the same might give rise to a different cause of action, or a new cause of action. But in the present case, admittedly, no fresh development has taken place as pleaded in the subsequent writ petition. We do not find anything to come to a conclusion that there has been a new stage or that there was a development of a new cause of action giving rise to a new stage, a copy of the earlier writ petition has since been filed by Mr. S.P. Gupta. I have compared both the writ petitions. In my view, it appears that both the writ petitions are based on the said same cause of action indentically pleaded in both the writ petitions. It appears that the same Counsel had moved both the writ petitions. The very seniority list dated 1st September, 1988 has been challenged on identical grounds in both the writ petitions alleging that the first representation of the petitioner was rejected by the order dated 11th August, 1992 and the second writ petition was rejected by the order dated 29th April, 1993. Both these orders dated 11th August, 1992 and 29th April, 1993 were challenged in the earlier writ petition. The only difference between the two writ petitions is with regard to paragraph 31 of the earlier writ petition and paragraph 25 of the second writ petition. Apart from the said difference, there appears to be no other difference except in the prayer portion. Inasmuch as even the number of the Annexures in both the writ petitions are identical.
12. In order to mark the difference of paragraph 31 of the earlier writ petition and paragraph 25 of the second writ petition, both the said paragraphs are quoted hereinbelow comparatively:-
"(31) That the petitioner has come to "(25) That the petitioner has come
know about the said order only to know about the said order
in the last week of September, only in the last week of
1993 when he went to LucknowNovember, 1993 when he went
and enquired from the office of to Lucknow and enquired from
respondent No. I about his the office of respondent No. 2
representation and then he was about his representation and
told that the same has already then he was told that the same
been decided and the order was has already been decided and
sent to his Jail Superintendent. the order was sent to his Jail
The petitioner then contacted Superintendent. The petitioner
some of his colleague and then contacted some of his
obtained the copy of the order colleague and obtained the copy
dated 29-4-1993 on September of the order dated 29-4-1993 on
30,1993." Decembers, 1993".
13. Thus, it appears while in the earlier writ petition, the knowledge was alleged to have been gained in the last week of September, 1993, whereas in the second writ petition, the knowledge was said to have been gained in the last week of November, 1993. The copy of the order dated 29th April, 1993 was alleged to have been obtained by the petitioner on 30th September, 1993 in the earlier writ petition, while on December 3, 1993, in the second writ petition.
14. In order to mark difference in the prayers, the prayers of both the writ petitions are also quoted comparatively as below:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in (a) Issue writ, order or direction in the
the nature of mandamus commanding nature of certiorah quashing the order
the respondents to fix the seniority of dated 11-8-1992 (Annexure 7) in so far
the petitioner above the persons against the petitioner and dated 29-4-
mentioned in list (Annexure II) finding 1993 (Annexure 9) to the writ petition,
place from SI. No. 153 to 231 in the
seniority list (Annexure V).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to consider the petitioner respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to fix the
for promotion to the post of Jailor seniority of the petitioner above the
above the persons mentioned from SI. persons regularised in 1981.
No. 153 to 231 in the seniority list.
(iii)Issue a writ, order or direction in (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
the nature of mandamus commanding nature of mandamus commanding the
the respondent No. 1 to reconsider the respondents to consider the petitioner
seniority list as per Rules 5 of the "U.P. for promotion to the post of Jailor as he
Government Service Rules, 1991." belongs to 1979 batch and keeping over
the regularised persons of 1981.
(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction (d) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit nature of mandamus commanding the
and proper under the circumstances of respondent No. 1 to determine the
the aforesaid case. seniority as per Rules 5 of the
"U.P.Government Servant Service
Rules, 1991" and not otherwise.
(v) Award the costs. (e) Issue a writ, order or direction
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper under the circumstances of
the case.
15. From a perusal of the above two sets prayer, it appears that prayer (i) of the earlier writ petition, is prayer (b) of the second writ petition with insignificant modification. Similarly, prayer (ii) of the first writ petition is the prayer (c) of the second writ petition with insignificant changes. Prayer (iii) of the first writ petition, is the prayer (d) of the second writ petition with similar insignificant alteration. While the last two prayers of the first writ petition are identical with prayer (e) and (f) of the second writ petition. Only one prayer for issuing of certiorari has been added or incorporated as prayer (a) of the second writ petition.
16. The certiorari was prayed for quashing Annexures 7 and 9 respectively of the second writ petition, which are Annexures 7 and 9 of the first writ petition. It was open to the petitioner to incorporate the same very prayer in the first writ petition. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that by virtue of prayer (a), a different stage or a new cause of action, which was not present at the time of dismissal of the first writ petition, has developed. On the other hand, the said prayer (a) of the second writ petition was implicit in the prayers made in the first writ petition. Even if any date was fixed by the petitioner on account of non-incorporation of the prayer for certiorari, it could have been done with leave of the Court even without applying for amendment. Inasmuch as cause title and prayers could be added to or altered or amended by a Counsel even on oral prayer with the leave of the Court. Not only that, the Court, if circumstances so warrant, could mould the prayer for doing justice. A comparison of both the prayers clearly indicates that the reliefs sought were identical in substance.
17. It also appears that the grounds B and C of the first writ petition has been amalgamated in ground II of the second writ petition, while grounds A,D and E of the first writ petition are identical with grounds No. 1,11 and IV of the second writ petition. Only two more grounds namely, grounds No. V and VI have been sought to be added, which may be quoted below:-
“V. Because for regularising the services of any adhoc employee, it was mandatory to comply with 1979 Rules strictly and any deviation will vitiate the regularisation.
VI. Because the order dated 29-4-1993 is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. It has been passed behind the back of petitioner in violation to the principles of natural justice and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of
18. The said two additional grounds show that those are not new grounds different from the grounds taken in the first writ petition. Even then, these two grounds were very much available when the first writ petition as dismissed as withdrawn. In both the writ petitions, the claim is based on the same facts challenging the same seniority list dated 1st September, 1988 on identical grounds.
19. Therefore, as observed earlier, admittedly, the present writ petition is based on the same cause of action and on same facts. Petitioner had on oath made contradictory statements in paragraph 31 of the first writ petition and pragraph 25 of the present writ petition by giving wrong dates deliberately only to make out a fresh date of cause of action. It seems that the petitioner has taken the process of oath very lightly and had made two statements in two different writ petitions affirmed one after the other between the period 16th October, 1993 and 23rd January, 1994, which is two short a period to claim forgetfulness. That apart, the fact of earlier writ petition has altogether been suppressed, which is a fact material within the meaning of Rule 7, Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules. In case it is alleged, as has been contended by Mr. SP Gupta, that it was not a bar under Rule 7, Chapter XXII of the aforesaid Rules, in that event, it was incumbent on the petitioner to distinguish the said fact and explain the stage different from the stage of dismissal of the writ petition. The fact of non-disclosure of the dismissal of the earlier writ petition coupled with contradictory statement made in paragraph 25 of the second writ petition, leads us to draw an inference adverse to the petitioner that he had deliberately suppressed fact and is guilty of making incorrect statement on oath, amounting to purgery. The petitioner appears to be an officer holding a responsible post in the Government and is an educated man, who happens to deal with matters concerning law since Jail Department is connected with law enforcing department as well as that of judiciary. It is not expected of him that he will be completely unaware of the consequence of affirmation on oath. If a Government servant is permitted to do so, then the entire system would crumble down.
20. Mr. S.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the omission or non-disclosure of the fact of the dismissal of the earlier writ petition is immaterial since no undue advantage has been obtained by the petitioner and that by reason thereof, the petitioner has not misled the Court or caused any prejudice to the respondents and that such non-disclosure and omission is not a suppression of material fact. In support of his contentions, he had relied upon the decisions in the case of Regubir Singh v. Municipal Board of Hardwar Union, Hardwar and Anr., AIR 1956 Alld 324, Sheo Koran and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1979 SC 58 and Patent and Trade Mark Agencies Employees’ Union v. William Frederic De Penning and Ors., AIR 1964 Calcutta 80.
21. In case of Raghubir Singh (supra), this Court had held that omission to mention a particular fact does not necessarily disentitle the petitioner to get a relief unless the fact, which has been omitted to be mentioned is material to the relief claimed by the applicant. In the said case the particular omission was held to be immaterial on the facts of the said case. In the said case, the feet of pendency of a suit claiming the same relief on behalf of a large number of owners was pending, was not mentioned in the writ petition. It was not a case of a second writ petition after dismissal of the earlier one. In the said case, Rule 7, Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules was also not under consideration. On the other hand, in the said case, it was held that despite existence of an alternative remedy and that such alternative remedy has been availed of, was not a bar dis-entitling tile petitioner to claim relief under Article 226 of the Constitution and omission to mention pendency of the suit, cannot be a ground for rejection of the writ petition. Thus the facts of the said case being wholly distinguishable from the present case, the ratio decided therein cannot be attracted.
22. In the case of Sheo Karan (Supra), it is not applicable in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. Inasmuch as a provision similar to that of Rule 7, Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, was not under consideration in the said case. In the said case concealment of facts that passing of a temporary injunction by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the appeal filed against the said order as well as failure of the revision were held to have no bearing on the main point in the writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court and, therefore, it was held that the Court did not think that the concealment of those facts had any bearing on the main point and, therefore, it was not possible to say that by concealing those facts, the petitioners had tried to mislead the Court and did not came with clean hands. On the other hand, in the present case, the dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn has a bearing in view of Rule 7, Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, with regard to the maintainability of the petition itself. Therefore, disclosure of the said fact is incumbent on the petitioner having a vital bearing on the maintainability of the second writ petition. Therefore, the ratio decided therein, also cannot be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
23. The decision in the case of patent and Trade Mark Agencies Employees’ Union (supra), by the Calcutta High Court also does not held Mr. Gupta in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the said case, in the writ petition, the petitioner did not disclose that proceedings of the Labour Court ending in an award dealing with the same proposition of law between two different parties. While dealing with the facts of the said case, the Calcutta High Court had come to a finding that a party can be said to be guilty of such practice if it is found that it had kept back from the Court a something, which was material for the Court to know to appreciate the correct position. Such a conclusion was arrived at on the reasoning that the adjudication of the Labour Court was not binding on the High Court in the matter of determination of a jurisdictional fact by the Tribunal in another case since the same very point of jurisdictional fact was taken by the petitioner therein before the Labour Court in his own proceedings, which he had taken to the High Court for determination. Admittedly, similar provision as that of Rule 7, Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, was not under consideration in the said decision. Similarly the fact, which was not disclosed for the reasoning given in the said decision, were not material facts, which could have any bearing on the writ petition. Thus the ratio decided therein, also, cannot be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
24. Now let us examine the decisions cited by Mr Yatindra Singh chronologically.
25. In the case of Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and Ors., AIR 1987 SC 88, the Apex Court had dealt with the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 1, sub-rule (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the application of the principle thereof in a writ petition, while holding that the principal enunciated in Order XXIII, Rule 1, sub-rule (3) is equally applicable in a writ proceedings on the ground of public policy and not on the ground of res judicate in the interest of administration of justice. It would be beneficial for us to quote the observation made in the said decision as hereinafter :
“It may be noted that while in sub-rule (1) of the former Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code the words ‘withdraw his suit’ had been used in sub- rule (1) of new Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code, the words ‘abandon his suit’ are used. The new sub-rule (1) is applicable to a case where the Court does not accord permission to withdraw from a suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of such suit or such part of the claim. In the new sub-rule (3) which corresponds to the former sub-rule (2) practically no change is made and under that sub-rule the Court is empowered to grant subject to the conditions mentioned therein permission to withdraw from a suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit. Sub-rule (4) of the new Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code provides that where the plaintiff abandons any suit or part of claim under sub-rule (1) or withdraws from a suit or part of a claim without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3), he would be liable for such costs as the Court might award and would also be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject a matter or such part of the claim.
7. The Code as it now stands thus makes a distinction between ‘abandonment’ of a suit and ‘withdrawal’ from a suit with permission to file a fresh suit. It provides that where the plaintiff abandons a suit or withdraws from a suit without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code, he shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject matter or such part of the claim. The principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code is that when a plaintiff once institutes a suit in a Court and thereby avails of a remedy given to him under law, he cannot be permitted to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter again after abandoning the earlier suit or by withdrawing it without the permission of the Court to file fresh suit. Invito beneficium non datur. The law confers upon a man no rights or benefits which he does not desire. Wherever waives, abandons or disclaims a right will lose it. In order to prevent a litigant from abusing the process of the Court by instituting suits again and again on the same cause of action without any good reason the Code insists that he should obtain the permission of the Court of file a fresh suit after establishing either of the two grounds mentioned in sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XXIII. The principle underlying the above rule is founded on public policy, but it is not the same as the rule of res judicata contained in Section 11 of the Code which provides that no Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly or substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. The rule of res judicata applies to a case where the suit or an issue has already been heard and finally decided by a Court. In the case of abandonment or withdrawal of a suit without the permission of the Court to file a fresh suit, there is no prior adjudication of a suit or an issue is involved, yet the Code provides, as stated earlier, that a second suit will not lie in sub-rule (4) of Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code when the first suit is withdrawn without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3) in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.
8. The question for our consideration is whether it would or would not advance the cause of justice if the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code is adopted in respect of writ petitions filed under Article 225/227 of the Constitution also. It is common knowledge that very. often after a writ petition is heard for some time when the petitioner or his Counsel finds that the Court is not likely to pass an order admitting the petition, request is made by the petitioner of by his Counsel, to permit the petitioner to withdraw from the writ petition without seeking permission to institute a fresh writ petition. A Court which is unwilling to admit the petition would not ordinarily grant liberty to file a fresh petition while it may just agree to permit the withdrawal of the petition. It is plain that when once a writ petition filed in a High Court is withdrawn by the petitioner himself, he is precluded from filing an appeal against the order passed in the writ petition because he cannot be considered as a party aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court. He may as stated in Daryao v. State of U.P., (1962) SCR 574: AIR 1961 SC 1457, in a case involving the question of enforcement of fundamental rights file a petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the High Court. The relevant observation of this Court in Daryao’s case (supra), is to be found at page 593 and it is as follows:
“If the petition is dismissed as with-drawn it cannot be a bar to a subsequent petition and Article 32, because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the Court. We wish to make it clear that the conclusions thus reached by us are confined only to the point of res judicata which has been argued as a preliminary issue in these writ petitions and no other.”
9. The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that Article. On this point the decision in Daryao’s case (supra), is of no assistance. But we are of the view that the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, cot on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once again. While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the course of action relief on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without such permission. In the instant case the High Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable before it in respect of the same subject-matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition.”
26. In the case of Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and Ors., 1997 (2) SCC 534, it was held as follows:-
“The High Court also was right in its conclusion that the second writ petition is not maintainable as the principle of constructive res judicata would apply. He filed the writ petition in first instance but withdraw the same without permission of the Court with liberty to file the second writ petition which was dismissed. Therefore, the second writ petition is not maintainable as held by the High Court in applying the correct principle of law.”
This Court in the case of Rahul Prasad v. Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and Ors., (1990) 2 UPLBEC 1039, had held as follows:-
“The petitioner is quilty of making a false statement on oath, obviously, for the purposes of” getting relief from this Court in the instant proceedings. It is well settled that the relief may be denied to a petitioner who is guilty of making a false statement in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from the fact that none of the contentions raised on his behalf is tenable, the petitioner, being guilty of making a false statement, has forfeited his claim for the relief, if any.”
27. A Dvision Bench of the Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal (supra), relying on the decision in the case of Daryao v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1451, of the Apex Court and L.Kashi Nath Seth v. Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, AIR 1979 Alld. 128, of this Court and Sarguja Transport Service (supra), had taken the same view in paragraph 8 of the said decision as hereinafter:-
“As has been noticed above, the first writ petition viz. writ petition No. 1572/91 had been dismissed as withdrawn. An order dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn cannot operate as resjudicata inasmuch as such dismissal cannot be equated with the dismissal on merits. This position is now well established in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Daryao v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1457. However, even though the order dated 2-6-91 may not operate as resjudicata yet it will debar the petitioner of that writ petition from filing a fresh writ petition for seaking the same relief which was claimed in the earlier writ petition. This position of law flows from the principle enshrined in Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which principle has to be applied to a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India excepting the habeas corpus writs. This Court in its decision in the case of L. Kashi Nath Seth v. Collector, Central Excuise, Allahabad and Ors., decided by a Division Bench and reported in AIR 1979 Alld. 128, had clarified that inspite of the explanation inserted in Section 141 by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 the salutary principles enshrined in the Code of Civil Procedure governing the trial of the Civil suits may be applied to the proceedings excepting the case of habeas corpus petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The principles underlying Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in our opinion are such, which would be applicable to petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India also excepting of course, the petitions relating to habeas corpus. The Apex Court in its decision in the case of Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1987 SC 38, clearly observed that a fresh petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of the same cause of action is not maintainable and the rule of public policy as contained in Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to such cases. It has been observed that a petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition in respect of the same cause of action in the High Court under that Article”. The decision of this Court in the case of L. Kashi Nath (supra), thus, stands impliedly approved by the Apex Court.”
28. The regret expressed by the petitioner through Mr. S.P. Gupta, having been accepted it is not necessary to go into the question of incorrect statement as discussed above, any further.
29. Since the principle of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure is also applicable in writ proceedings by way of public policy, if it is withdrawn without the leave or liberty, it attracts application of Chapter XXII, Rule 7 of the High Court Rules, which was conceived of with the same public policy. In the present case, no leave was obtained to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. There having been no change in the stage as in the present case and the first writ petition as discussed above having not disclosed any distinction, it is not open to the petitioner to maintain the second writ petition particularly in view of the ratio decided in the cases cited above, read with Rule 7, Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules.
30. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable for the foregoing reasons, however, without cost.