Dr. Bharat Jhunjhunwala vs Union Of India And Others

Ravi Malimath, J

CLMA No. 6869 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner seeking to withdraw the present writ petition. The reason assigned is that certain relevant facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition, have not been stated because of subsequent events.

The same is opposed by Shri Ankur Saigal, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent no. 5. He submits that there were seven writ petitions filed by the petitioner against his company; and that the writ petitions are being filed only to harass him. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the writ petition is required to be dismissed without granting a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition.

On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate relief is required to be granted.

The reason assigned for withdrawal of the writ petition is that certain facts are required to be brought to the notice of the Court and, therefore, it is just and appropriate to file a fresh writ petition. However, keeping in mind that there are seven writ petitions filed earlier and even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the same cause of action, earlier also a writ petition was filed by him, as narrated by him in paragraph no. 3 of this writ petition, we deem it just and appropriate to dismiss this writ petition as withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner with the Registry before filing of the fresh writ petition, if any.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Application for withdrawal (CLMA No. 6869 of 2020) is disposed off accordingly.