Withdrawing a writ petition without leave bars appeal and abandons Article 226 remedy, except Article 21 habeas corpus

Petitioner withdrew a HC writ without permission to file a fresh petition; SC held that such withdrawal precludes appeal from the HC order and operates as abandonment of the remedy under Article 226 for the same cause of action, though it does not amount to res judicata and does not bar remedies like a suit or an Article 32 petition. The HC correctly declined a fresh writ on the same subject-matter. The Court exempted potential cases involving personal liberty under Article 21/habeas corpus and dismissed the petition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition without permission to file a fresh petition.
2. Merits of the decision by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the High Court.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of the Withdrawal of the Earlier Writ Petition
The petitioner initially filed a writ petition (M.P. No. 2945/85) challenging the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which was withdrawn without seeking permission to file a fresh petition. The petitioner later filed another writ petition (M.P. No. 188/86) on the same matter, which was dismissed by the High Court on the grounds that no second writ petition lies against the same order without prior permission. The Supreme Court examined the applicability of Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to writ petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the principle underlying Rule 1 should be extended to writ petitions to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and discourage bench-hunting tactics. The Court concluded that the High Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable since the earlier petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition.

Issue 2: Merits of the Decision by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the High Court
The petitioner and others applied for a stage carriage permit after the expiry of the permit held by Janta Transport Co-operative Society. The Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to the petitioner, but this decision was overturned by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which granted the permit to M/s. Ali Ahmed & Sons. The Tribunal's decision was based on two grounds: the petitioner was a practicing advocate and had ceased to carry on the transport business in his individual capacity. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the merits, found no grounds to reverse the High Court's decision and dismissed the special leave petition.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, affirming the High Court's decision that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable without prior permission after the withdrawal of the earlier petition. The Court also found no merit in the petitioner's claims against the decision of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

---