2010 (3) TMI 1039 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court Upholds Dismissal of Fresh Petitions to Prevent Judicial Abuse

Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another Versus State of Orissa and Others

Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another Versus State of Orissa and Others - [2011] 43 VST 247 (Ori) 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writ petitions (W.P. (C) Nos. 2503-2510 of 2008) covering assessment years 1976-77 to 1983-84, which were dismissed as withdrawn by the High Court on April 10, 2008, without any determination on the merits.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.