Withdrawal without liberty bars fresh Article 226 writs on the same assessment orders and defeats discretionary relief.

Fresh writ petitions under Article 226 challenging the same assessment orders were held not maintainable where earlier writ petitions had been withdrawn without liberty to file afresh. The earlier liberty was confined to pursuing statutory appeals, so the same cause of action could not be re-agitated in a second writ round. Applying the principle underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, the remedy under Article 226 was treated as abandoned in respect of those assessment orders. The Court also declined discretionary interference, treating the renewed petitions as an abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether fresh writ petitions could be maintained challenging the same assessment orders after the earlier writ petitions had been withdrawn with liberty only to pursue statutory appeals, and whether the petitioners were entitled to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The earlier writ petitions had been withdrawn without liberty to institute fresh writ petitions. The liberty granted was confined to pursuing the statutory appellate remedy, not to re-agitate the same assessment orders in a second round under Article 226. Applying the principle underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the remedy under Article 226 in respect of the same cause of action was treated as abandoned. The Court also held that the petitions were not fit for discretionary interference because they were a second attempt on the same subject matter and amounted to abuse of the process of court.

Conclusion: Fresh writ petitions challenging the same assessment orders were not maintainable, and discretionary relief was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition withdrawn without liberty to file afresh cannot be refiled on the same subject matter under Article 226, and the High Court may refuse relief where the second petition amounts to abuse of process.

---