Judicial propriety bars reopening the sugar mill sale dispute where the same controversy is already pending before the Supreme Court.

Fresh writ challenges to the sale of sugar mills were declined because they substantially repeated issues already decided by a coordinate Bench, including the validity of the slump sale process and the Swiss Challenge Method. As the same controversy was pending before the Supreme Court, and the impugned government orders expressly made the sale subject to that outcome, the Court held that the matter should not be reopened in parallel writ proceedings. It further noted that any liberty said to have been obtained earlier could not be relied on where material facts were suppressed, since fraud vitiates judicial proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the sale of sugar mills and the connected government orders were maintainable in view of the earlier adjudication on the same subject, the pending special leave petition before the Supreme Court, and the allegation that liberty from the Supreme Court had been obtained by concealment of material facts.

Analysis: The challenge raised in the writ petitions substantially overlapped with issues that had already been decided by a coordinate Bench, including the validity of the slump sale process and the applicability of the Swiss Challenge Method. Those issues were pending consideration before the Supreme Court in the connected proceedings, and the impugned government orders themselves made the sale subject to the outcome of that pending matter. The Court held that the same controversy could not be reopened in fresh writ proceedings and that judicial propriety required deference to the apex court. It also held that the liberty allegedly obtained earlier could not be relied upon where material facts had been suppressed, since fraud vitiates all judicial proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained and were dismissed.

---