9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (3) TMI 1039 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhat is the effect of the order dated November 17 2008 passed by the honourable Supreme Court in relation to order dated April 10 2008 passed by this court in W.P. (C) Nos. 2503 to 2510 of 2008? Held that - In view of the fact the petitioners by virtue of order of the honourable Supreme Court dated November 17 2008 has been relegated to a position to post-order dated April 10 2008. The permission granted in the order means only leave to do some acts which but for the leave will be illegal. The permission so granted by the honourable Supreme Court if understood in the context as aforesaid does not bind this court to act in the manner as wished by the petitioners without being alive to settled position of law when order dated April 10 2008 passed by this court stares at the face of the petitioner as well as this Bench of this court. Even otherwise the order impugned does not come within the ambit of review inasmuch as the same does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record and permitting the order to stand shall not in any way lead to failure of justice. We feel inclined to make it clear that our order impugned in the review petitions does not in any way affect the liberty granted to the petitioners vide order dated April 10 2008 as it must have been clear by now that we have followed the salutary judicial practice only to upkeep the sanctity of the earlier order passed by another Bench of this court on April 10 2008.In the result we are not inclined to admit these review petitions and the same are dismissed in limine.
Issues Involved:
1. Withdrawal of writ petitions and its legal implications. 2. The effect of the Supreme Court's order on the High Court's previous order. 3. Whether the High Court's dismissal of the writ petitions was justified. Detailed Analysis: 1. Withdrawal of Writ Petitions and Its Legal Implications: The petitioners initially filed writ petitions (W.P. (C) Nos. 2503-2510 of 2008) covering assessment years 1976-77 to 1983-84, which were dismissed as withdrawn by the High Court on April 10, 2008, without any determination on the merits. The court allowed the withdrawal with liberty to approach other forums in accordance with the law. The petitioners later approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, which permitted withdrawal with the intention to file an appropriate petition before the High Court. Subsequently, the petitioners filed fresh writ petitions (W.P. (C) Nos. 11866-11873 of 2009) on the same cause of action, which were dismissed by the High Court on October 7, 2009. The High Court emphasized that the principle underlying Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the CPC is to prevent abuse of the judicial process by instituting fresh suits on the same subject matter after abandoning the earlier suit without the court's permission. The court cited "Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior AIR 1987 SC 88," which established that a litigant cannot institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action after withdrawing it without permission. 2. The Effect of the Supreme Court's Order on the High Court's Previous Order: The Supreme Court's order dated November 17, 2008, allowed the withdrawal of the writ petitions with permission to file an appropriate petition before the High Court. The High Court interpreted this permission as not invalidating the previous order dated April 10, 2008, which allowed the petitioners to approach other forums. The High Court clarified that the permission granted by the Supreme Court did not relegate the petitioners to a status before the order dated April 10, 2008, and that the previous order remained in effect. The High Court referenced "State of U.P. v. Labh Chand AIR 1994 SC 754," emphasizing that a second writ petition on the same subject matter should not be entertained if the first writ petition was dismissed, even if the dismissal was in limine. This rule prevents abuse of the judicial process and ensures finality in judicial decisions. 3. Whether the High Court's Dismissal of the Writ Petitions Was Justified: The High Court dismissed the fresh writ petitions (W.P. (C) Nos. 11866-11873 of 2009) based on the principle that successive writ petitions on the same cause of action are discouraged. The court noted that the petitioners had already availed of the remedy and abandoned it by withdrawing the earlier writ petitions with liberty to move other forums. The court emphasized that its decision was not based on the merits of the case but on the public policy of preventing successive writ petitions. The High Court concluded that the impugned order did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record and that allowing the order to stand would not lead to a failure of justice. The court reiterated that its decision was in line with the judicial practice of upholding the sanctity of previous orders and preventing abuse of the judicial process. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the review petitions in limine, affirming that the dismissal of the fresh writ petitions was justified based on established legal principles and judicial practice.
|
