B.K.Narayana, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri A. D. Saunders, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who claims himself to be the duly appointed Principal of St. Andrew's Intermediate College, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as Institution) for quashing the orders dated 28.2.2007 and 1.3.2007 Annexures-I and II passed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 respectively. By the order dated 28.2.2007 passed by the respondent No. 2 Sri R. B. Singh, respondent No. 5 has been permitted to function as officiating Principal of the Institution and by the order dated 1.3.2007, passed by the respondent No. 3, the signatures of the respondent No. 5 have been attested as officiating Principal of the Institution. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri A. D. Saunders, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5 regarding the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground that the petitioner alongwith the alleged Committee of Management of the Institution had earlier filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16906 of 2007 for quashing the same orders, which are impugned in the instant writ petition and the petitioner had abandoned his challenge to the orders impugned in the said writ petition without obtaining any liberty from the Court to file a fresh writ petition against the said orders as would be evident from the perusal of the order dated 5.4.2007, passed by this Court by which Writ Petition No. 16906 of 2007 was decided and hence the present writ petition which is the second writ petition filed by the petitioner on the same facts and same cause of action on which the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 16906 of 2007 is in- competent in view of the provisions of Chapter XXII, Rule 7 of the Allahabad High Court Rules as well as the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 1 of sub-rule (4) of Code of Civil Procedure.
(3.) OPPOSING the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents No. 3 and 4, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had neither got the earlier writ petition filed by him dismissed as withdrawn, nor he had abandoned his claim to the office of Principal by giving up his challenge to the orders impugned in the said writ petition, but had merely made a prayer to the Court at the time of hearing of Writ Petition No. 16906 of 2007 that the Writ Petition No. 16906 of 2007 may be confined to the issue of the management of the Institution alone and all references made in the said writ petition including that in the prayer clause with regard to the office of the Principal of the Institution, may be treated to be deleted from the record as no relief in respect thereto was being pressed. Accordingly, this Court while deciding the Writ Petition No. 16906 of 2007 observed that the said writ petition was finally decided with reference to the management of the Institution alone. The order passed in Writ Petition No. 16906 of 2007 does not prohibit the petitioner from filing a fresh writ petition assailing the orders, which were impugned in the said petition. Since the petitioner had neither got the aforesaid writ petition dismissed as withdrawn nor he had abandoned his claim to the office as Principal and his challenge to the impugned orders and as such he was not at all required to obtain any liberty from the Court for filing a fresh writ petition for the relief claimed in Writ Petition No. 16906 of 2007. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4 and have also perused the records.;