Petitioner filed a fresh writ petition over disallowed LTC claims after withdrawing an earlier petition on the same cause of action without liberty. Relying on Sarjuga Transport Service, the court held bench-hunting is impermissible and dismissed the second petition as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~23
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
Date of Decision: 25.09.2024
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC for UOI. Insp./ED Janak Roy- SSB.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
J U D G M E N T
NAVIN CHAWLA, J (ORAL)
“a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari for quashing of the order dated 18.03.2021 by which respondent has disallowed the LTC as well as next two sets of LTC and approval of recovery along with penal interest of 10 days leave encashment.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the actual amount of LTC claim in favour of the petitioner.
c. Direct the respondents to transmit all documents and records before the Hon'ble Court as submitted by the petitioner.”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12088/2022
Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Da te:0 1.10.2024 11:12:05
Page 1 of 5
“(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari for quashing of the signal dated 18.03.2021 to the extent whereby not only disciplinary action has been directed against the petitioner;
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the actual amount of LTC claim in favour of the petitioner and not initiate any departmental proceedings against the petitioner;
(iii) Direct the respondents to transmit all documents and records before the Hon’ble Court as submitted by the petitioner.”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12088/2022
Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Da te:0 1.10.2024 11:12:05
Page 2 of 5
disclosure of the earlier petition is duly made in the present petition.
“9. The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that article. On this point the decision in Daryao case [AIR 1961 SC 1457 : (1962) 1 SCR 574] is of no assistance. But we are of the view that the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12088/2022
Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Da te:0 1.10.2024 11:12:05
Page 3 of 5
under Article 226 of the Constitution once again. While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without such permission. In the instant case the High Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable before it in respect of the same subject-matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition. We, however, make it clear that whatever we have stated in this order may not be considered as being applicable to a writ petition involving the personal liberty of an individual in which the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or seeks to enforce the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution since such a case stands on a different footing altogether. We, however leave this question open.”
“1. After some arguments, when this Court was not inclined to grant relief to petitioner, learned counsel for petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12088/2022
Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Da te:0 1.10.2024 11:12:05
Page 4 of 5
2. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
3. Pending application also stands disposed of.”
(NAVIN CHAWLA) JUDGE
(SHALINDER KAUR) JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 25, 2024/ab/km
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12088/2022
Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Da te:0 1.10.2024 11:12:05
Page 5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Is a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action maintainable when an earlier writ petition was withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ajay Bisht
Union of India
Navin Chawla
Shalinder Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
