DR.ANAND C.J. - (1.)THE validity of an order dated 24 -1 -1984 passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for grant of permanent settlement in India and for the deportation, has been called in question in this writ petition. Notice was issued to the respondents and objections have been filed on behalf of Union of India. Besides, contesting the claim of the petitioners on merits, certain preliminary objections have been raised on behalf of the Union of India, but the only preliminary objection, which was pressed at the stage of arguments, which require notice by us.
(2.)THE preliminary objection raised by Mr. R. P. Sethi, learned standing counsel for the Union of India, is that the present writ petition is, barred by the general principles of resjudicata, because an earlier writ petition, being writ petition No. 249 of 1984, was dismissed as withdrawn after objections had been filed by the Union of India on 18 -12 -1985, after learned counsel for the petitioners in that writ petition had unsuccessfully made an attempt to meet the objections raised by the Union of India.
(3.)MR . M. S. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioners, has tried to meet the preliminary objection raised by Mr. R. P, Sethi by urging that since the earlier writ petition No. 249 of 1984 was dismissed as withdrawn, it cannot be deemed to have been disposed of on merits and since, there was no contest on merits, the general principles of res -judicata do not come into play. He further urged that in the present writ petition certain more assertions which were contained in the previous petition have been raised and, therefore, on that account also, the general principles of resjudicata will not come in his way.
We have given our thoughtful considerations to the respective contentions raised at the bar and, for what shall follow, in our opinion, the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Sethi must succeed.