TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1873
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case reported as Rita Mishra and others Vrs. Director, Primary Education, Bihar & Ors., 1987 PLJR 1090 was doubted. 3. In Rita Mishra's case, the earlier Division Bench judgment reported as Kishori Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, A.I.R. 1985 Patna 298 was relied upon to hold that a second petition on similar facts in respect of the same cause of action by the same party would not be maintainable. The view of the Full Bench was doubted and consequently the matter has been placed before this Bench. 4. The brief facts leading to the said reference is that Guru of the present petitioner instituted a Title Suit claiming a declaration that the properties mentioned therein were personal and private properties and the Trust being private could not be subjected to the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950. It is asserted that he has been substituted as Mahanth of the private Math on 27th of October, 1983 after the death of his Guru. It appears that the proceedings were initiated for appointing the successor of the Math after the death of the Guru of the petitioner as a vacancy said to have become available on the basis of report of the Postman the Guru ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under:- "(19) We must now proceed to state our conclusion on the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. We hold that if a writ petition filed by a party under Art. 226 is considered on the merits as a contested matter and is dismissed the decision thus pronounced would continue to bind the parties unless it is otherwise modified or reversed by appeal or other appropriate proceedings permissible under the Constitution. It would not be open to a party to ignore the said judgment and move this Court under Art. 32 by an original petition made on the same facts and for obtaining the same or similar orders or writs. If the petition filed in the High Court under Art. 226 is dismissed not on the merits but because of the laches of the party applying for the writ or because it is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it, then the dismissal of the writ petition would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Art. 32 except in cases where and if the facts thus found by the High Court may themselves be relevant even under Art. 32. If a writ petition is dismissed in limine and an order is pronounced in that behalf, whether or not the dismissal w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h of the said judgment reads as under:- "23. We may now refer to two arguments which were mentioned in passing but were not pursued. The first was that a writ petition similar to Writ Petitions Nos. 3420-3426/83 etc. had been filed earlier and had been dismissed in limine by a Bench of this Court. We do not see how the dismissal in limine of such a writ petition can possibly bar the present writ petitions. Such a dismissal in limine may inhibit our discretion but not our jurisdiction. So, the objection such as it was, was not pursued further. So also, the second objection which related to the nonjoinder of all affected parties to the litigation. We are quite satisfied that even if some individual affected parties have not been impleaded before us, their interests are identical with those and have been sufficiently and well represented. Further, the relief claimed in Writ Petitions Nos. 3420-3426 of 1983 etc. is of a general nature and claimed against the State and no particular relief is claimed against any individual party. We do not think that the mere failure to implead all affected parties is a bar to the maintainability of the present petitions in the special circumst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y reasonable but also expeditious." 12. In another judgment reported as Ramesh Chandra Sankla and others Vs. Vikram Cement and others, (2008) 14 SCC 58, the Supreme Court was seized of a situation wherein earlier petition under Article 226 was withdrawn. It was held that it will be a matter of public policy that a person should not start a fresh round of litigation and the Court will not allow to re-agitate the claim which he himself had already given up earlier. Paragraph 61 reads as under:- "61. From the above case law, it is clear that it is open to the petitioner to withdraw a petition filed by him. Normally, a court of law would not prevent him from withdrawing his petition. But if such withdrawal is without the leave of the court, it would mean that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting or continuing the proceedings and he abandons his claim. In such cases, obviously, public policy requires that he should not start a fresh round of litigation and the court will not allow him to reagitate the claim which he himself had given up earlier." 13. A Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Shri Ramesh Prasad & Anr.....