Second writ petition barred after reasoned High Court dismissal, reinforcing finality and preventing re-agitation of the same dispute.

A second writ petition under Article 32 was held not maintainable where the High Court had already finally dismissed an earlier writ by a reasoned speaking order on the merits. The Court applied the principle that re-agitation is barred after final adjudication, even if rule nisi had not been issued in the High Court. The failure to challenge the High Court's order by appeal or special leave further reinforced the bar against reopening the same penalty dispute under the sales tax laws. The petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was maintainable to challenge the penalty imposed under section 11(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 read with section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, after the High Court had already dismissed an earlier writ petition by a speaking order without an appeal or special leave having been sought.

Analysis: The earlier dismissal by the High Court was a speaking order giving reasons on the merits. The Court treated the present petitions as covered by the principle that a second writ petition does not lie where the matter has already been finally decided by a reasoned order, even if rule nisi had not been issued in the High Court. The absence of an appeal against the High Court's order or a petition for special leave reinforced the bar to re-agitation.

Conclusion: The petitions under Article 32 were not maintainable and were dismissed.

---