R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) HEARD . Samundar Singh petitioner herein has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India vide which he has made a prayer for quashment of the order dated 22.11.2000 passed by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Development and Panchayat, Chandigarh and the order dated 2.11.2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak by which the petitioner who was elected as Sarpanch has been removed from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Ajaib, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak. The petitioner has been removed from the post mainly on the ground that since he had more than two children after the cut-off date, therefore, he was disqualified to contest for the post of Sarpanch. When this revision petition came up for hearing before me today, a preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of respondent No. 3 that this revision petition deserves to be dismissed in limine as it is an abuse of the process of law, because the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition No. 17033 of 2000 which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 30.1.2001.
(2.) I have heard Mr. R.S. Bains, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Geeta Mathuria, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for respondents 1, 2 and 4 and Mr. Narinder Hooda, counsel for respondent No. 3 and with the assistance rendered by them have gone through the records. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that order dated 30.1.2001 dismissing the writ petition does not debar the petitioner from filing the present revision petition as the said writ petition was never disposed of on merits and the order dated 30.1.2001 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner earlier, cannot operate as res judicata for the purpose of disposal of the revision petition. Mr. Bains invited my attention to para 14 of the revision petition wherein the petitioner has specifically stated that he earlier filed a writ petition No. 17033 of 2000 which was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file the same on similar grounds. On the contrary, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 submits that the present revision petition is the abuse of process of law and in view of the order dated 30.1.2001, the present revision deserves to be dismissed on the short ground that earlier the petitioner has already availed the prayer as contained in the present revision petition.
(3.) I have considered the rival contentions raised by the counsel for the parties. It is not being disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders i.e. the subject-matter of the present revision were earlier challenged by the petitioner Samundar Singh by filing a writ petition No. 17033 of 2000. A reading of the aforesaid writ petition shows that the present petitioner Samundar Singh had made a prayer in that petition under Articles 226/277 of the Constitution that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and the impugned orders Annexures P-4 and P-8 (of that writ petition) be quashed. By order dated 2.11.2000, the petitioner was removed from the office of Sarpanch. He filed appeal before the State Government which was dismissed on 22.11.2000. It further appears that during the pendency of that writ petition, Samundar Singh filed a Civil Misc. 2382 of 2001 and made a prayer before the Bench for withdrawal of the writ petition in order to avail the alternative remedy available to him. Civil Misc. was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed with permission to seek the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner under the law. It will be proper for me to reproduce hereunder the order dated 30.1.2001 in order to appreciate the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties. "The petitioner has moved the present application for withdrawal of the writ petition since he seeks to avail the alternative remedy available to him. CM is allowed. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with permission to seek the appropriate remedy available under the law." Sd/- A.S. Gill January 30, 2001 Sd/- V.S. Aggarwal A reading of the prayer made in the present revision petition clearly reveals that the present revision petition is the abuse of process of law. The Bench never gave permission to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition or a revision petition on the same cause of action. Cause of action accrued to the petitioner with the passing of the order dated 2.11.2000 which was affirmed in the appeal which had been dismissed by order dated 22.11.2000. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid two orders by way of writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and the said writ petition was dismissed by the Bench with permission to seek the appropriate remedy available under the law. The present revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is nothing but the abuse of process of law. Therefore, the present revision is hereby dismissed in limine with no orders as to costs. Revision dismissed.;