Court Dismisses Petition Due to Prior Withdrawal, Citing Abandonment of Cause and Repetitive Litigation Concerns.

The HC dismissed the writ petition, ruling it non-maintainable due to the petitioner's unconditional withdrawal of an earlier PIL, which constituted abandonment of the cause of action under Article 226. The court applied the principle from Sarguja Transport Service, emphasizing judicial propriety and preventing repetitive litigation by barring re-litigation of identical issues under a different guise. The petitioner's shift from public interest to personal interest under the Income Tax Informants Reward Scheme was insufficient to distinguish the petitions substantively. The court underscored the legal consequences of unconditional withdrawal, rejecting arguments for equity-based reconsideration.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition after unconditional withdrawal of a previous petition.
2. Alleged tax evasion and the petitioner's right under the Income Tax Informants Reward Scheme, 2018.
3. Distinction between public interest litigation and personal interest litigation.
4. Application of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
5. Application of the principle laid down in Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior and others.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The primary issue is whether the current writ petition is maintainable after the petitioner unconditionally withdrew a previous public interest litigation (PIL) writ petition (W.P. No.3635/2020). The respondents argued that the withdrawal of the earlier petition amounted to an abandonment of the cause, thus precluding the petitioner from pursuing the present writ petition. The court examined the principles laid down in Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior and others, which states that withdrawing a writ petition without permission to file a fresh one implies abandonment of the cause of action under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court concluded that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner had unconditionally withdrawn the earlier PIL, thus abandoning the cause.

2. Alleged Tax Evasion and Petitioner's Right under the Reward Scheme:
The petitioner claimed that they had provided information about tax evasion under the Income Tax Informants Reward Scheme, 2018, and sought enforcement of their right to a reward. The petitioner argued that the first respondent failed to act on the information provided, which constituted a separate cause of action. However, the court noted that the allegations and references in the present petition were identical to those in the earlier withdrawn PIL, albeit with a shift in locus from public interest to personal interest for the reward. This shift was deemed insufficient to distinguish the two petitions substantively.

3. Distinction between Public Interest Litigation and Personal Interest Litigation:
The petitioner contended that the earlier PIL was withdrawn due to its mixed nature of public and personal interest. The present petition, focusing solely on personal interest under the Reward Scheme, should be considered separately. The court, however, found that the core issues in both petitions were the same, and the mere change in the nature of interest did not alter the fundamental cause of action. The court emphasized that the withdrawal of the PIL without liberty to file afresh precluded the petitioner from re-litigating the same issues under a different guise.

4. Application of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
The petitioner argued that the use of the term "unconditional" in the withdrawal order of the earlier PIL was superfluous and that principles of equity should allow the present petition. The court disagreed, stating that the unconditional withdrawal of the earlier petition had significant legal consequences. The court referenced the decision in M/s. M. Ramnarain Private Limited and Another vs. State Trading Corporation of India Limited to highlight that the withdrawal of an incompetent appeal does not preclude subsequent appeals if the initial appeal was not legally valid. However, this was distinguished from the present case where the earlier petition was withdrawn unconditionally, thus barring re-litigation of the same cause.

5. Application of the Principle in Sarguja Transport Service:
The court extensively discussed the principle from Sarguja Transport Service, which holds that withdrawal of a writ petition without permission to file a fresh one bars the petitioner from invoking the same cause of action under Article 226 again. The court applied this principle, noting that the petitioner had already filed multiple writ petitions on similar grounds, all of which were dismissed on maintainability grounds. The court concluded that allowing the present petition would undermine the judicial process and encourage bench-hunting and repetitive litigation.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the unconditional withdrawal of the earlier PIL amounted to an abandonment of the cause of action, thus barring the present petition. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of judicial propriety and preventing abuse of the legal process through repetitive and strategically shifted litigation.

---