Constructive res judicata bars a successive writ challenge where exemption from mandatory pre-deposit was never sought earlier.

A litigant who had earlier opportunities to seek exemption from the mandatory statutory pre-deposit could not revive that omission in a later writ petition. The Court applied constructive res judicata and treated the successive challenge as an abuse of process because the petitioner had not sought that specific relief in the prior writ proceedings, before the Supreme Court, or after remand. It further noted that the appeal had been dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement itself, not merely on limitation. The successive writ petition was therefore not maintainable, and the appellate order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could maintain a successive writ petition after having omitted to seek exemption from the statutory pre-deposit in earlier proceedings, and whether dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The petitioner had repeatedly challenged the assessment and appellate orders but at no stage had sought a specific relief exempting it from the mandatory pre-deposit required for filing the statutory appeal. The Court found that the petitioner was fully aware that the appeal had been dismissed for want of compliance with the pre-deposit condition, yet chose not to seek that relief either in the earlier writ proceedings, in the proceedings before the Supreme Court, or in the later writ petition after remand. Relying on the principle that all claims and grounds which could and ought to have been raised in the earlier proceeding must be raised there itself, the Court held that the later challenge was barred by constructive res judicata and amounted to an abuse of process. The Court also noted that the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement, not merely on limitation.

Conclusion: The successive writ petition was not maintainable, and the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit condition was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed because the omitted challenge to the pre-deposit requirement could not be revived in later proceedings, and the impugned appellate order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A litigant who had the opportunity to raise a statutory relief in earlier proceedings but omitted to do so cannot reopen the issue in successive writ proceedings, and such omission attracts constructive res judicata and abuse of process.

---