Sukhbir Kaur vs State of Punjab and Others

G.S. Singhvi and M.L. Singhal, JJ.—This petition has been filed with the following prayers :

"(i) records of the be called for and after perusing the same,

(ii) an appropriate writ, order or direction specially writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the pass appropriate order regarding migration of the candidature of the petitioner from Government Polytechnic for Women, Amritsar to Government Polytechnic for Women, Jalandhar studying in Architectural Assistantship II year at Government Polytechnic for Women Amritsar be issued :

(iii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the in favour of the petitioner be issued;

(iv) requirement of advance notices upon the respondents of this writ petition be dispensed with :

(v) filing of certified copies of Annexures P-l to P-l 1 be dispensed with

(vi) costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner be awarded; and

(vii) any other relief which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner be awarded."

Earlier to this, a Civil Writ Petition No. 12632 of 1996 was filed by the petitioner with identical prayer. When that petition came up for hearing before the first Division Bench on August 20, 1996, learned counsel representing the petitioner sought permission to withdraw it. Accepting his request the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

Arguing in support of this writ petition, learned counsel tried to wriggle out of the consequences of the order passed on 20.8.1996 in CWP No. 12632 of 1996. He submitted that the previous writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach the respondents and in fact after 20.8.1996, petitioner had made representation to the respondents for grant of relief by way of migration and as the respondents have not taken any action for giving relief to the petitioner, she has been compelled to institute this writ petition.

During the course of hearing Shri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel who had appeared on behalf of the petitioner''s counsel Mr. K.S. Dadwal on 20.8.1996 submitted that in fact the first Division Bench had observed that the petitioner was seeking execution of the directions given by the Minister and for implementation of the same the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner was to make representation to the higher departmental authorities. He submitted that with a view to avail remedy at the departmental level the writ petition was withdrawn.

Since there is nothing in the order dated 20.8.1996 to indicate that the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach the departmental authorities or with permission to institute a fresh petition, the dismissal of writ petition on 20.8.1996 will have to be treated as un-conditional. We cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in addition to what has been recorded in the order-sheet dated 20.8.1996 the Court had made some observations which should be read as a part of the order of the Court and relief should be given to the petitioner ignoring the fact that previous writ petition filed on the same subject matter stands dismissed as withdrawn.

In State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another, , a similar attempt was made before the Apex Court to draw the Court into controversy about the exact happening in the proceedings of the High Court. Their Lordsnips repelled such attempt by observing :

"The Court is bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in Court. It cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit ther evidence. If the Judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the Court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there."

Since the writ petition No. 12632 of 1996 was dismissed as withdrawn on the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and no permission was given to the petitioner to institute fresh writ petition on the same subject matter, we have no hesitation to dismiss this writ petition as not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior and Others, , wherein their Lordships observed as under :

"In order to prevent a litigant from abusing the process of the Court by instituting suits again and again in the same cause of action without any good reason the Civil P. C. insists that he should obtain the permission of the Court to file a fresh suit after establishing either of the two grounds mentioned in Order 23 Rule 1(3). The principle underlying the above rule is founded on public policy, but it is not the same as the rule of res judicata. This principle underlying Rule 1 of Order 23 should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to s of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy. That would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench hunting tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 once again. While the 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 since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ."

For the reasons enumerated above, the writ petition is dismissed.