Res judicata in writ proceedings bars a later constitutional petition after a speaking dismissal on the merits, even without notice.

A speaking order dismissing a writ petition on the merits operates as res judicata against a later petition on the same facts and for the same relief, even if notice was not issued to the other side. The decisive factor is whether the earlier High Court order adjudicated the constitutional challenge; a dismissal in limine without reasons stands on a different footing. Because the prior Article 226 dismissal was merits-based, the subsequent Article 32 petition could not reopen the same challenge and was not maintainable. The petition therefore failed at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 32 was barred where an earlier writ petition under Article 226 had been dismissed by a speaking order on the merits, even though no notice had been issued to the other side.

Analysis: The governing principle is that the bar of res judicata depends on whether the earlier High Court order was a decision on the merits. If the High Court dismisses the petition by a speaking order after considering the merits, the dismissal operates as a bar to a later petition on the same facts and for the same relief, irrespective of whether notice had been issued. A dismissal in limine without reasons does not stand on the same footing, but that is not the situation where the order itself adjudicates the constitutional challenge.

Conclusion: The later petition was barred by res judicata and was not maintainable under Article 32.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge could not be reopened after the earlier merits-based dismissal, and the petition failed at the threshold.

Ratio Decidendi: A speaking order of the High Court dismissing a writ petition on the merits operates as res judicata against a subsequent petition on the same cause, even if the earlier order was passed without notice to the other side.

---