9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (12) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Constitution is to direct the first respondent, who is the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle III, Madras-34, to desist from taking recovery proceedings pursuant to his notice dated May 17, 1966, under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the petitioner. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 2328 of 1966 , for an identical relief on certain grounds, which was dismissed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not give any explanation whatever as to why those points were not taken. His only answer is that the points did not occur to him at the time the earlier petition was filed. While we sympathise with the counsel, it has, however, to be realised that a second writ on an identical subject-matter cannot be allowed. It is not merely on the principle that there should be a finality to the litigation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te all facts and circumstances and urge all the grounds on which he seeks relief and failure to do so either by negligence or oversight cannot be an excuse for starting of a litigation all afresh. That wholesome principle, as we think, must apply to proceedings under article 226 as well. Halsbury says in the Laws of England, third edition, volume II (Simonds edition) : " When an application for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht to have been urged in the earlier application. In Mangat Ram Kuthiala v. Commissioner of Income-tax the above passage from Halsbury's Laws of England, was cited, and it was pointed out : " It is thus a settled rule that the court will not allow a party to succeed, on a second application, when it has previously applied for the very same thing and failed, except in case of alteration in the for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
