https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294567 A writ petition under Article 226 challenging the same grievance as an earlier PIL was held not maintainable because the earlier proceeding had been unconditionally withdrawn. The court applied the public policy principle reflected in Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC: where liberty to file afresh is not reserved, the same cause of action is treated as abandoned and cannot be re-agitated in a fresh writ petition. The petitioner's reliance on the general principle that any citizen may set criminal law in motion did not assist, because the relief sought was a mandamus against a constitutional regulatory authority, not merely the filing of a criminal complaint. en-us Fri, 08 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Apr 2021 08:15:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294567 A writ petition under Article 226 challenging the same grievance as an earlier PIL was held not maintainable because the earlier proceeding had been unconditionally withdrawn. The court applied the public policy principle reflected in Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC: where liberty to file afresh is not reserved, the same cause of action is treated as abandoned and cannot be re-agitated in a fresh writ petition. The petitioner's reliance on the general principle that any citizen may set criminal law in motion did not assist, because the relief sought was a mandamus against a constitutional regulatory authority, not merely the filing of a criminal complaint. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294567