Constructive res judicata barred fresh grievances over seized documents, and the release order was left undisturbed.

A challenge to an order releasing non-relied upon seized documents was rejected because the authority had acted in compliance with earlier writ directions, and the court would not interfere with the authority's discretion to decide which seized documents should be relied on or retained for investigation. Fresh grievances based on facts and allegations already in existence when the earlier petitions were filed could not be raised again in a third petition, as the claim was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and constructive res judicata. The writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order releasing non-relied upon documents called for interference in the third writ petition, and whether the petitioner could raise fresh grievances arising from matters already in existence in earlier proceedings.

Analysis: The challenge was examined in the backdrop of two earlier writ petitions in which the Court had already confined relief to return of documents not relied upon by the authority. The impugned order was passed in compliance with the earlier direction, and the petitioner had already received the documents identified as non-relied upon. The Court held that it could not sit in judgment over which seized documents were to be relied upon or retained for investigation, as that decision lay within the authority's discretion. The Court further held that fresh grievances based on facts and allegations existing at the time of the earlier petitions could not be reagitated in the third petition, as the claim was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the principle of constructive res judicata.

Conclusion: The impugned order did not warrant interference and the writ petition was dismissed.

---