- (1.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the dismissal of the first Writ Petition bearing C.M.W.P. No. 12999 of 1991 vide order dated 6.7.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was in limine. It would be res judicata or constructive res judicata. For this purpose learned counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in Daryao and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. [(1962) 1 SCR 574]. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this court to the following paragraph of the Daryao's case (supra): "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 Article 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 Article 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 Article 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 Article 32 except in cases where and if the facts thus found by the High Court may themselves be relevant even under Article 32. If a writ petition is dismissed in limine and an order is pronounced in that behalf, whether or not the dismissal would constitute a bar would depend upon the nature of the order. If the order is on the merits it would be a bar; if the order shows that the dismissal was for the reason that the petitioner was guilty of laches or that he had an alternative remedy it would not be a bar, except in cases which we have already indicated. If the petition is dismissed in limine without passing a speaking order then such dismissal cannot be treated as creating a bar of res judicata. It is true that, prima facie, dismissal in limine even without passing a speaking order in that behalf may strongly suggest that the Court took the view that there was no substance in the petition at all; but in the absence of a speaking order it would not be easy to decide what factors weighed in the mind of the Court and that makes it difficult and unsafe to hold that such a summary dismissal is a dismissal on merits and as such constitutes a bar of res judicata against a similar petition filed under Article 32. If the petition is dismissed as withdrawn it cannot be a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32, because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the Court. We wish to make it clear that the conclusions thus reached by us are confined only to the point of res jadirata which has been argued as a preliminary issue in these writ petitions and no other. It is in the light of this decision that we will now proceed to examine the position in the six petitions before us."
(2.) The High Court had dismissed the previous writ petition after fifteen years after hearing learned counsel for the parties and that too on merits not in limine. Reasons have also been assigned for dismissal of the Writ Petition. The only ground raised in previous writ petition was with respect to Section 17(1) which has been dealt with in the impugned order which was passed by the Division Bench of the High court on 6.7.2005. Thus filing of the second Writ Petition was not only misconceived but ill-advised action and the new ground, which was urged of lapse of proceedings was not available to be raised in second writ petition. Successive writ petition could not be said to be maintainable with respect to the same Notification. Hence, it had rightly been dismissed by the High Court.
(3.) The appeal is dismissed with cost which is quantified at Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be deposited in the Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Fund within a period of one month.;