Res judicata in writ proceedings bars a fresh demand for retrospectively recovered supervision charges after final adjudication.

An earlier final writ decision had already held that enhanced supervision charges were not recoverable retrospectively, and that determination operated as res judicata between the same parties. A later demand on the same foundational claim, including interest, could not reopen a matter conclusively decided in writ proceedings. Because the subsequent notices had no independent legal basis and merely repeated the barred claim, they were unsustainable in law. The impugned demands were quashed and the earlier final adjudication was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier writ decision finally determining the liability to pay supervision charges with retrospective effect barred a fresh demand on the same basis under the doctrine of res judicata; (ii) Whether the subsequent demand notices seeking supervision charges and interest could survive after the earlier adjudication had attained finality.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier writ decision finally determining the liability to pay supervision charges with retrospective effect barred a fresh demand on the same basis under the doctrine of res judicata.

Analysis: The earlier writ petition had been allowed on the footing that the enhanced supervision charges were not recoverable with retrospective effect, and that order had attained finality. The later demand rested on the same foundational claim, namely recovery of the same enhanced supervision charges on account of the revised pay structure. The rule of conclusiveness of judgments applies in writ proceedings as well, and a matter once finally decided between the parties cannot be reopened by a subsequent demand on the same issue.

Conclusion: The earlier final adjudication operated as res judicata and barred re-agitation of the same liability.

Issue (ii): Whether the subsequent demand notices seeking supervision charges and interest could survive after the earlier adjudication had attained finality.

Analysis: Since the claim for retrospective recovery had already been negatived between the same parties, the later notices had no independent footing. A consequential demand cannot override or bypass a final determination between the parties, and the withdrawal of one notice did not revive a legally unsustainable demand for the same amount and interest. The impugned demands therefore could not stand in law.

Conclusion: The subsequent demand notices were unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the impugned orders were set aside, and the demand notices were quashed on the ground that the matter had already attained finality and could not be reopened.

Ratio Decidendi: Res judicata applies to writ proceedings and bars a fresh demand on a claim that has already been finally adjudicated between the same parties on the same foundational issue.

---