2.This appeal is, in fact, preferred by the respondents 2 and 3 to the Writ Petition who are the Correspondent and Principal of the College of Engineering where the writ petitioner was stated to be employed as an Attender. The learned counsel for the appellants Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, has brought to our notice that against the orders passed by the Principal of the college on 10.11.1998, the writ petitioner Mr.N.S.Mohanram instituted W.P. (MD)No.3301 of 2007 before this Court. When the Writ Petition was heard on 11th April, 2007, the learned counsel appearing for the said Mr.N.S.Mohanram, sought permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner also made an endorsement to that effect in the court bundle on the said Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.3301 of 2007. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition (MD) No.3301 of 2007 was dismissed as withdrawn. No liberty or leave has been sought for from the Court while withdrawing the said Writ Petition (MD)No.3301 of 2007. Without in so many words disclosing the fact that the said writ petition was instituted and withdrawn, another writ petition has been instituted in this Court i.e. W.P.(MD)No.199 of 2008. It is therefore urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the present Writ Petition (MD)No.199 of 2008 is not maintainable. The learned counsel has also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior, and others reported in (1987) 1 SCC 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the provisions contained under Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, has held that when a suit or a proceeding is withdrawn, thereafter, second suit or similar proceeding cannot be initiated. In that view of the matter, the institution of the present Writ Petition (MD) No.199 of 2008, without disclosing it faithfully amounts to approaching this Court with unclean hands.
