Fresh writ petition barred after withdrawal without liberty, as the remedy is treated as abandoned on the same cause of action.

A fresh writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 was held not maintainable where an earlier petition on the same cause of action had been withdrawn without liberty to refile. Applying the principle underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC to writ proceedings on grounds of public policy, the Court treated the withdrawal as abandonment of the remedy for that subject-matter. It further noted that permitting a second petition on identical facts would encourage repeated invocation of writ jurisdiction. The fresh petition was therefore liable to be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a fresh writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 was maintainable after an earlier writ petition on the same cause of action had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition.

Analysis: The Court applied the principle underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as extended to writ proceedings on grounds of public policy. It held that withdrawal of a writ petition without liberty amounts to abandonment of the remedy in respect of the same cause of action, and a fresh petition on identical facts is not maintainable. The Court also noted that this rule discourages repeated invocation of writ jurisdiction on the same subject-matter.

Conclusion: The fresh writ petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition withdrawn under Article 226 or 227 without liberty to refile cannot be instituted again on the same cause of action, as the remedy is treated as abandoned for that subject-matter on grounds of public policy.

---