LAKSHMANAN, CJ. - (1.) HEARD Mr. N. M. Lodha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, learned counsel, for the respondents.
(2.) THIS special appeal is filed by the appellant against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in DBCW Petition No. 1098/2000 dated 18. 4. 2000. The writ petition was filed by the appellant-petitioner by making three prayers which are as under:- (1) The respondents may kindly be directed not to make any recovery in pursuance to short fall caused from the months of January, 2000 to April, 2000; (2) The respondents may further be directed to make adequate supply of liquor in pouches as per demand of the petitioner. (3) The respondents may kindly be directed to refund the amount recovered in past, as alleged short fall. Before the learned Single Judge an argument was advanced that since earlier writ petition was withdrawn, without reserving any liberty, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Accepting the contention, the learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the second petition cannot be maintained for the same grievance. When this appeal was listed today for hearing, we heard the arguments on merits and also on the question of maintainability of the second writ petition. Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the same arise out of a matter of contract between the petition and the answering respondents with whom the petitioner-appellants have bound themselves. We have perused the prayers made in both the writ petitions. In the present writ petition prayer (1) relates to directing the respondents not to make any recovery in pursuance to the short fall caused from months of Jan. 2000 to April, 2000 and prayer (2) to make adequate supply of liquor in pouches as per demand of the petitioner. The 3rd prayer relates to refund of the amount recovered in past as alleged shortfall.
(3.) THE prayer in the earlier writ petition was to the effect, directing the respondents not to make any recovery in regard to the periods before January, 2000. Since we have decided to dispose of the matter on merits, we are not inclined to render any finding on the maintainability of the present writ petition. Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the supply of liquor in a particular container, of the choice of the appellant was not the term of the contract nor they could insist for supply in a particular container only. The entire submission of Mr. Lodha centers around only one allegation that the supply of liquor was not made to the appellant in pouches as per their demand. This only is treated to be the ground by the appellant-petitioner for maintaining the writ petition. ;