Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Srila De vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 8 October, 2021
Item No.7
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
(via video conference)
08.10.2021
Ct-24
WPA 13809 of 2021
Srila De
v.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Narayan Chandra Mandal
Mr. Chandan Chakraborty
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Amal Kumar Sen
Mr. Lal Mohan Basu
... for the respondent nos. 1, 4 & 5.
Mr. Joytosh Majumder
... for the respondent no. 2.
Ms. Tapati Samanta
... for the respondent no. 3.
The petitioner in the instant writ petition has
prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to
grant ten years incremental benefit along with arrear
salaries following ROPA 2019 and issue revised PPO
along with interest.
It appears that the petitioner filed an earlier writ
petition being WP No. 3136(W) of 2020. In the said writ
petition also the petitioner prayed for a direction upon
the respondent authorities for grant of ten years benefit
with effect from May 1, 2019.
The earlier writ petition was disposed of by this
Court on January 22, 2021. The Court recorded that the
grievance of the petitioner in respect of the writ petition
has been redressed by the State. There remains no
cause of action to be adjudicated in the writ petition.
The petitioner has re-agitated the self-same point
by filing the present writ petition.
The learned advocates representing the
respondents raise objection with regard to the
maintainability of the writ petition before this Court.
Reliance has been placed upon the provision of Section
11 Explanation V of the Civil Procedure Code.
It mentions that any relief claimed in the plaint,
which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for
the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been
refused.
Reliance also placed upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarguja
Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
M.P. Gwalior & Ors., reported in 1987(1) SCC 5 paragraph
9 wherein it has been mentioned that the principle
underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil
Procedure should be extended in the interests of
administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ
petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on
the ground of public policy. It would also discourage the
litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. There is
no justifiable reason to permit a petitioner to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India once again.
The Court further held that while withdrawal of a
writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to
file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like
a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India since such withdrawal does not amount to res
judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India should be deemed to have been
abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of
action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it
without such permission.
In the instant case, the earlier writ petition filed by
the petitioner was disposed of on merits where the Court
categorically recorded that there remains no cause of
action to be adjudicated in the writ petition, accordingly
it may be implied that the petitioner abandoned her
remedy, if available, in law.
In view of the facts mentioned hereinabove, the
Court is of the view that since the prayer made by the
petitioner in the earlier writ petition and the present writ
petition are the same and the earlier writ petition was
disposed of by the Court on merits, similar prayer in the
subsequent writ petition cannot be entertained by the
Court.
The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties after completion of all
legal formalities.
Sh (Amrita Sinha, J.)
