R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.B. Sahai, Advocate who appeared for the respondent No. 3 and also perused the record. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the citation dated 24.8.2001. Prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to adopt coercive measure against the petitioner in the recovery proceedings has also been made.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the contesting respondent raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition. It was urged that earlier petitioner filed writ petition No. 25409 of 1998 which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 18.8.1998 alongwith other connected petitions. This Court directed the Competent Authority to decide the objection filed by the petitioner by means of a speaking order. It was also urged that the petitioner also filed a case in Consumer Forum, which was also dismissed on 13.8.2001. Both the aforesaid order have become final. It was urged that in view of Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court the second petition on the same facts is legally not maintainable. In the present petition the loan in question, the controversy involved substantially and the parties are the same in the present petition, which were in the previous petition. Further, the order passed by the Consumer Forum has become final which operates as res -judicata. Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court prohibits filing of successive petitions on the same facts. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is legally not maintainable. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.;