TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (3) TMI 1039
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the merits of the case and all the questions are left open. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. This will not in any way prevent the peti tioner from approaching other forum in accordance with law. Misc. Case Nos. 2211 and 2212 of 2008 are also disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Sd/ A.K. Ganguly,CJ. Sd/ B.N. Mohapatra, J." A cursory reading of the aforesaid order makes it explicitly clear that the writ petitions have been allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to approach other forum in accordance with law. No sort of interpretation of the aforesaid order makes the same agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that permission has been granted to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action as the same (the writ petitions) suffered from non-joinder of parties. However, without approaching the other forums as represented before this court in the aforesaid writ petitions, i.e., W.P. (C) Nos. 2503-2510 of 2008, the petitioners approached the honourable Supreme Court under article 32 of the Constitution of India and the honourable Supreme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er placed by M/s. CIL, whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was correct in law to hold that the transactions do not constitute sale falling under section 3(a) of the CST Act? (3) That in view of the fact that the indents placed by the constituents of M/s. CIL were mere indents to take delivery of the goods, whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was correct to hold that the actual sales were triggered by such indents and taken place inside the respective State and were intra-State sale subject to levy of tax under the law of that State?" Thereafter, examining all the aspects, the questions referred to above were answered as follows: "(i) In view of the quotation of the assessee-company, supply order of M/s. CIL and the surrounding factors noted supra, the Sales Tax Tribunal was not correct to hold that the order issued by M/s. CIL was not a contract of sale and that the actual purchase and sale were triggered only when the collieries placed indent with M/s. IDL Chemicals. (ii) The movement of goods from M/s. IDL Chemicals, Rourkela to different States constitutes sales under section 3(a) of the CST Act. (iii) The sales having taken place at the exit points of M/s. IDL, Rourkela, the State o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ope on the part of a court and the ambit thereof in permitting withdrawal of a suit/case with liberty to file afresh. Order XXIII, rule 1 CPC, does not confer an unbridled power upon the court to grant permission to withdraw the petition, with liberty to file afresh, on the same cause of action; it can do so only on the limited grounds mentioned in the provision of Order XXIII, rule 1 CPC, and they are, when the court is satisfied that the suit must fail by reason of some formal defect or there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to 1 Here italicised. institute a fresh suit for the same subject-matter, and that too, on such term as the court thinks fit. The grounds for granting a party permission to file a fresh suit, include a formal defect, i.e., in the form or procedure not affecting the merit of the case, such as also of statutory notice, under section 80 of the Code, mis-joinder of the parties or cause of action, non payment of proper court-fee or stamp fee, failure to disclose cause of action, mistake in not seeking proper relief, improper or erroneous valuation of the subject-matter of the suit, absence of territorial jurisdiction of the court or defect in pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of law and also facts as this court proceeded on the premises that the earlier writ petitions were adjudicated on merit. If the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is considered vis-a-vis the law of withdrawal of the writ petitions discussed supra, there is no hesitation in our mind to hold that the writ petitions were not permitted to be withdrawn for non-joinder of parties as asserted by learned counsel for the review petitioners, but while allowing withdrawal of the writ petition liberty was granted to the petitioners to approach any other forum which is obviously not another Bench of this court. Further, this court while passing the order dated October 7, 2009 impugned in the review petitions did not at all proceed on the premise that the order dated April 10, 2008 was passed in W.P. (C) Nos. 2503 to 2510 of 2008 on merit. We only took into consideration the salutary public policy of discouraging successive writ petitions as the petitioners having availed of the remedy had abandoned the same by withdrawing the earlier writ petitions with liberty to move other forum. The principles of law which shaped our mind to pass the impugned order have been well exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it petitioner to go on filing writ petition after writ petition in the same matter in the same High Court, and have it brought up for consideration before one judge after another. Such a thing, if is allowed to happen, it would result in giving full scope and encouragement to an unscrupulous litigant to abuse the process of the High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution in that any order of any Bench of such court refusing to entertain a writ petition could be ignored by him with impunity and relief sought in the same matter by filing a fresh writ petition. This would only lead to introduction of disorder, confusion and chaos relating to exercise of writ jurisdiction by judges of the High Court for there could be no finality for an order of the court refusing to entertain a writ petition. It is why, the rule of judicial practice and procedure that a second writ petition shall not be entertained by the High Court on the subject-matter respecting which the first writ petition of the same person was dismissed by the same court even if the order of such dismissal was in limine, be it on the ground of laches or on the ground of non-exhaustion of al....