WPMS/1819/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 3564 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                     COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  WPMS No. 1819 of 2021
                                  Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Vinoda Nand Barthwarl, Advocate for the petitioner.

As against the action taken by the respondents for recovering an amount of Rs. 6,04,662/- by an order dated 27.02.2009, the petitioner had preferred a belated Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1481 of 2014. The said Writ Petition was allowed by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench dated 17th November, 2017, but the consequential relief of refund of the amount, as a consequence of setting aside of the recovery order, was not passed, though it was available to be pressed by the petitioner at the time with the Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1481 of 2014, was being decided on 17th November, 2017.

The petitioner preferred a second Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1018 of 2020, i.e. almost after three years of the earlier judgment, wherein, he has sought the following reliefs :-

"I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to pay and refund the entire amount deducted from the petitioner pursuant to the order 27.02.2009 with prevailing interest. (contained as Annexure no.5 to the writ petition."

In fact, the relief sought, was by way of a writ of mandamus for refund of the amount, as deducted as a consequence of the order of 27th February, 2009.

The Coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the second Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1018 of 2020, instead of issuing any positive mandamus to the respondents to refund the amount, had directed the respondents to consider the matter of the petitioner and take a decision on it.

Admittedly, in pursuance to the said order of 27th November, 2020, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which, the petitioner has already submitted his reply and the proceedings, as a consequence thereto, to the judgment of 23rd November, 2020, are still pending consideration before respondents.

During the intervening period, the petitioner preferred a Contempt Petition, at a belated stage, seeking enforcement of the principle judgment of 2017 dated 17.11.2017.

The Contempt Petition, being Contempt Petition No. 99 of 2020, has been dismissed on the ground of limitation, as provided under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, vide judgment dated 03.03.2020.

I am of the view that in order to purge and override the effect of the judgment dated 03.03.2020, being conscious of the fact that the respondents in compliance of the judgment which was rendered by the Coordinate Bench on 23rd November, 2020, the respondents are already ceased with the matter and no final decision has yet been taken so far, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition, which is third in succession, praying for an identical relief, which was earlier the subject matter in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1018 of 2020.

There are two reasons not to interfere in the Writ Petition ;

i. The relief, which has been pressed in the present Writ Petition, was already a subject matter of consideration in the earlier Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1018 of 2020, which was not granted and rather the matter was relegated to the respondents to consider it afresh. That itself would amount to be a denial of relief. Hence, the Second Writ Petition would not be maintainable.

ii. Secondly, this Writ Petition for the identical reliefs, would not be maintainable because, it would be said to be a clever device adopted by the petitioner to override the effect of the judgment of Contempt dated 03.03.2020, where the petitioner has sought to enforce the judgment of 2017.

In that view of the matter and for the aforesaid two reasons, which I have already referred above, the present Writ Petition would not be maintainable, as it would be a second Writ Petition for the same relief and it would amount to be a Writ Petition to purge the effect of the dismissal of the contempt.

Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) Dated 09.09.2021 Shiv