Duplicative writ petition under Article 32 barred when an identical Article 226 petition is already pending

A writ petition under Article 32 seeking the same reliefs on the same factual basis as an already pending Article 226 petition was treated as impermissible duplication. Because the earlier High Court petition had been admitted and remained pending, the Supreme Court considered the second constitutional petition a misuse of the judicial process. The writ petition was therefore held not maintainable and dismissed as an abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 32 was maintainable when the petitioner had already filed an identical writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court and that petition was still pending.

Analysis: The petition under Article 32 sought the same reliefs on the same factual foundation as the earlier writ petition under Article 226. The earlier petition had already been admitted by the High Court and remained pending. On these facts, the filing of a second petition invoking the constitutional remedy before this Court was treated as impermissible duplication and misuse of the judicial process.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed as an abuse of process.

---