9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered view that the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue with this petition despite the unconditional withdrawal of the said writ petition in W.P.No.3635/2020 (PIL) even on the ground that the subject matters in these two petitions are different: to permit the petitioner to continue the writ petition would be overlooking the kernel given the core issues urged by the petitioner for the seeming and encouraging artifice. It is already observed that the Coordinate Benches in similar circumstances relying upon this proposition have dismissed the other writ petitions holding that such petitions, which are filed after abandoning the earlier petition with the unconditional withdrawal, would not be maintainable. This Court is also of the considered view that the enunciation by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Services vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior and others [ 1986 (11) TMI 377 - SUPREME COURT ] would apply and the petition is liable to be dismissed also on this ground. Petition dismissed. - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD PETITIONER (BY SRI M.R. SUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE) RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GANESH R., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SANDEEP HUI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Scheme ], and the information filed demonstrates breach of the provisions of the IT Act by the second to seventh respondents. The first respondent nevertheless has failed to initiate action against these respondents. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The petitioner has also filed other writ petitions alleging breach of the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [SEBI Act], and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. These writ petitions are in W.P.Nos.13838/2020 India Awake for Transparency vs. The Chairman, Securities and Exchange Board of India, W.P.No.12073/2020 - India Awake for Transparency vs. The Director, Directorate of Enforcement and others and W.P.No.11482/2020 - India Awake for Transparency vs. Mr. Azim Hasham Premji and others . Presently these writ petitions are disposed of on January 8th 2021, January 21st 2021 and January 18th 2021 respectively. 5. Sri. S. Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel who appears for the third to seventh respondents, when the matter was listed on 7.12.2020 raised preliminary objections as regards the maintainability of the writ petition. The learned Senior Coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithdrawal of an incompetent writ petition cannot be construed as abandonment of the cause of action which would otherwise be available to the petitioner. The learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in M/s. M. Ramnarain Private Limited and Another vs. State Trading Corporation of India Limited (1983) 3 SCC 75 in support of this submission. 8. The learned Counsel urges that the subject matter of the writ petition in W.P.No.3635/2020 [PIL] and the present writ petition are different: subject matter of any proceedings will be an amalgam of cause of action and the relief. The learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Vallabh Das vs. Dr. Madan Lal and Others (1970) 1 Supreme Court Cases 761 in support of this proposition, and submits merely because there is some similarity in the relief/s and in the assertions in the writ petition in W.P.No.3635/2020 [PIL] and the present writ petition, it cannot be construed that the petitioner with the withdrawal of the petition has abandoned the cause which would otherwise be available to him in law. 9. The learned counsel lastly urges that the reliance on the provisions of Order XXIII Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x of that case, the Hon ble Supreme Court has concluded that the withdrawal of the earlier appeal, which was an incompetent appeal and not an appeal in the eye of law, would not affect the validity of the subsequent appeal filed against a decree from which an appeal is provided. 12. The learned Senior Counsel argues that the petitioner alleging a particular cause of action, which encompasses the cause of action asserted in the present petition, filed W.P. No.3635/2020 [PIL]. The alleged incompetence in the aforesaid writ petition is because of a mix of the petitioner s alleged keenness to espouse public cause and a personal interest to receive reward under the Reward Scheme. But in petitions presented as public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cases where an element of private interest is discerned, the common practice is to either permit the petitioner to withdraw the public interest litigation petition with leave to file a petition for vindication of the discerned personal interest, or to permit the petitioner to convert the petition accordingly. 13. The learned Senior Counsel relying upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Monnet Ispa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose of applying the equity principle contained under Order XXIII of the CPC. There is an obvious distinction in the present case and in the case on hand before the Hon ble Supreme Court in Vallabh Das vs. Dr. Madan Lal and Others supra relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the subject matter of the two different proceedings are different. 16. The question of maintainability of this writ petition will have to be examined not only in the light of the rival submissions but also in the light of features that are beyond cavil. After the dismissal of the writ petition in W.P.No.3635/2020 (PIL), the petitioner has filed other writ petitions which are disposed of by coordinate Benches of this Court. The reasons for the disposal of these writ petitions will have a material bearing on the question for consideration because of certain undisputed facts. The petitioner in these subsequent writ petitions has split up the causes pleaded in the earlier writ petition in W.P. No.3635/2020 [PIL] based on the alleged violations of the provisions of different enactments: if the present writ petition is for a direction to the concerned to initiate action under the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of the IT Act. In the writ petition in W.P. No. 3635/2020 [PIL] in paragraph 26 (f) to 26 (j), the petitioner refers to the transactions that are in violation of the provisions of the IT Act; these transactions are certain gift transactions, merger transactions, inter se transactions between two trusts and other alleged evasions referring to the information filed by the petitioner. This information according to the petitioner is assigned docket numbers/ case number 1/2020 - 3/2020. Additionally, the petitioner has filed application for amendment in the writ petition in W.P. No. 3635/2020 [PIL] to include assertions as regards the alleged tax evasions by the third and fourth respondents, and the petitioner in this regard has referred to the information filed and identified by the petitioner as docket/ case Nos. 4/2020 and 5/2020. These allegations and references are the very assertions made in the present writ petition, but the distinction attempted is the change in the locus. It is stated that the allegations, references and relief in the earlier petition is to espouse public cause and in the present case is to earn the reward assured under the scheme. If this ingenious effort ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ petition in the High Court under that Article. On this point the decision in Daryao's case 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, not 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 a 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 a 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 of India since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without such permission. In the instant case the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
