You are on page 1of 4

1/28/2015

MANUPATRA

MANU/AP/0178/1999
EquivalentCitation:AIR1999AP240,1999(2)ALD198,1999(2)ALT341

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFANDHRAPRADESHATHYDERABAD
WPNo.10207of1996
DecidedOn:23.02.1999
Appellants:BayShippingCompanyPvt.Ltd.,Visakhapatnam
Vs.
Respondent:BoardofTrustees,VisakhapatnamPorttrustandothes
Hon'bleJudge:
B.S.Raikote,J.
Counsels:
ForAppellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr.D.V.SitharamMurthy,Adv.
ForRespondents/Defendant:Mr.K.SrinivasaMurthy,SCforVSPPortTrustandMr.V.V.L.N.Sarma,Adv.
Subject:Constitution
Subject:Commercial
Acts/Rules/Orders:
ConstitutionofIndiaArticle226MerchantShippingAct,1953Section426MajorPortTrustAct,1963Section64,MajorPortTrustAct,1963
Section120,MajorPortTrustAct,1963Section123CodeofCivilProcedure,1908Order23Rule1
CasesReferred:
U.P.v.LabChand,AIR1994SC754
CitingReference:

ReliedOn1

CaseNote:
ConstitutionauctionsaleofvesselArticle226ofConstitutionofIndiaseizureandsubsequentsaleoftwotrawlersbyPortTrustAuthorityto
penalizepetitionerfornonpaymentofbillssuitaswellaswritpetitionfiledchallengingactionofPortTrustAuthoritieswritpetition
dismissedonaccountofpendingsuitwithdrawalofsuitsoughtbypetitionerwhichwasdismissedbyTrialCourtoncivilrevisionpetitionfiled
bypetitionerHighCourtallowedsuittobewithdrawnsubsequentlysecondwritpetitionfileditisopentopetitionertofileafreshsuitbut
notawritpetitionheld,filingofsecondwritpetitionnotjustifiedhoweverpetitioneropentoapproachCivilCourtforredressal.

Industry:Shipping

ORDER
B.S.Raikote,J.

1.ThepetitionerhasfiledthiswritpetitionquestioningtheactionoftherespondentsinauctioningandsellingofhistwofishingtrawlersM.F.T.'SeaFox'
and MFT 'Marine Victor' to the third respondent M/s. T.S. Enterprises, Visakhapatnam and with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent i.e.,
VisakhapatnamPortTrusttoredeliverthesaidvesselstothepetitioner,aftersettingasidetheauctionsaledated921996.
2.Intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthewritpetition,itisstatedthatthepetitionerpurchasedthesetwofishingtrawlersinapublicauctionheldbythe1st
respondenton681986andonthedateofpurchase,thesetwotrawlerswerenotseaworthyandtheywereabouttosink.Thepetitionereffectedextensive
repairs by investing huge amounts over and above Rs.55,00,000/ in the year 1986. During that period, these trawlers were drydocked for the purpose of
repairs under the supervision of the Indian Registrar of Shipping and Mercantile Marine Department for the purpose of classification and certification of
seaworthiness. It is further stated that the petitioner paid all the charges payable for such drydocking. Ultimately, after fully repairing the two vessels,
file:///C:/Users/Oasis.com/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/ZXGPOD8U/violation%20of%2064.htm

1/4

1/28/2015

MANUPATRA

theywerefittedwithechosounders,cathodicprotection,sandblastingandotherworkslikepainting(corrosionmaintenance)weredonebetweenNovember,
1986andMarch,1987.Thus,thetwovesselswerebroughttoalmostanewconditionandtheywerespecificallydesignedforthepurposeoffishing.Butthe
petitionerduetoindustrialsicknessinthefishingindustry,wasconstrainednottooperatethevessels.Necessarycrewrequiredfortheroutinemaintenance
alsowereemployedItisfurtherstatedthatthe1strespondentwasentitledtoberthchargesforkeepingthevesselsinitsfishingharbourcomplexandthe
petitionerwaspayingsuchchargesasperthemonthlybills.Therespondentauthoritiesalsousedtocollectpenalchargesandthewharfageifthetrawlers
continuetoremaininthefishingharbourformorethantwomonths.Itisfurtherstatedthatwhenevertherewerearrears,theChairmanofthe1strespondent
usedtograntwaiverofpenalcharges,providednormalberthchargeswerepaid.Whenthematterstoodthus,inthemonthofJune,1992,theauthoritiesof
respondentNo.1seizedthetwotrawlersfortheallegednonpaymentofberthcharges.ThepetitionerrepresentedthemattertothePortTrustAuthorities
andonhisrepresentation,therespondentNo.1'sauthoritiesdirectedthepetitionertopayanamountofRs.3,80,000/togetthosetwotrawlersreleasedfrom
theseizureandalsoforreconcilingthestatement.Accordingly,thepetitionerpaidRs.3,80,000/on1781992tothe1strespondentinaccountNo.671/780
andthesamewasacknowledged.Atthattime,petitioneralsomadeanapplicationforwaiverofpenalcharges.Atanyrate,theauthoritiesliftedtheseizure
andthetwotrawlerswerehandedovertothepetitioner.Meanwhile,theChairmanofthe1strespondentvidehisletterdated3121992consideredthepenal
charges and by virtue of such consideration, the outstanding dues were substantially reduced, leaving a substantial deposit amount in the account of the
petitionertothecreditofthepetitioner.Duetounfavourableconditions,thepetitionercouldnotmovehisvesselsonmanyoccasionsandthepetitionerwas
forced to tie down the trawlers in the jetty. Meanwhile, the officers of the 1st respondent instead of sending a proper statement of account after
reconciliation,issuedanoticedated2441995statingthatthepetitionerfailedtopaytheberthchargesandwharfagechargesamountingtoRs.2,12,980/as
on 2711995. The two fishing trawlers were seized from the date of that notice and an interest at the rate of 18.5 per cent on that amount was also
demanded.Thepetitionerstatedthatsuchseizurewasillegal,sincethepetitionerdidnotfallintoarrearsandasonthedateoftheallegedseizure,there
wassurplusamountofRs.47,229.62ps.tothecreditofthepetitioner.Therewasalsogeneralwaiverofthepenalcharges,subjecttothepaymentofberth
charges at normal rates. In these circumstances, the petitioner sent a reply dated 651995 to the notice of seizure, stating to the 1st respondent that the
petitioner was not in arrears of any amount. Petitioner also brought to the notice of the 1st respondent that in the event of petitioner depositing the berth
charges,theChairmanfindagreedtowaivethepenalcharges.Apprisingallthesefacts,thepetitionerrequestedrespondentNo.1tolifttheseizureofthe
vessels.The1strespondentreceivedthesame,butdidnotdenythecontentsoftheletter,norliftedtheseizureeffectedon2441995.Itisfurtheralleged
thatthepetitionermadeanotherrepresentationon3171995totheChairman,bringingtohisnoticethediscrepancyinchargesandalsosoughtwaiverofthe
penalberthcharges.Meanwhile,petitionersentanotherletterdated481995,whichwasacknowledgedbytheTrafficManager.TheChairmanofthe1st
respondentsentareplyletterdated3171995advisingthepetitionertopayalltheoutstandingduesatthenormalchargeswithaccruedinterestasonthat
date, for making representation for waiver of penal charges. For that, the petitioner vide his letter dated 17111985 stated that there was no necessity to
makeanypayment,sincetherewasexcessamountlyingintheaccountofthepetitioner,healsorequestedforreconciliationoftheaccounts.Itisfurther
statedthatthepetitionerlearntfromthecaveatpetitionfiledbythe3rdrespondent,thatthetwotrawlerswerealreadyauctionedtothe3rdrespondent,who
quotedthehighestprice.Butthepetitionerhadnotreceivedanynoticeregardingthesalebytendersystemandsuchasaleeffectedbythe2ndrespondentin
favourof3rdrespondentisillegal,unwarrantedandmalafide.Itisstatedthatnonoticewasissuedtothepetitionerbeforethesalewaseffectedinfavour
of 3rd respondent. Petitioner further alleged that, the so called arrears amount was only Rs.3,00,000/ and odd, and for that purpose, the trawlers whose
valueisnotlessthan1,75,40,000/shouldnothavebeensold.Thesalealsowasillegal,asthe1strespondentfailedtotakethepermissionoftheRegistrarof
IndianShipsaspertheprovisionsofMerchantShippingAct,1953.Therefore,thesalebeingincontraventionofSection426ofMerchantShippingAct,is
illegalandvoid.Moreover,thesocalledsalebytenderwascontrarytotheinstructionsofsateissuedbythe1strespondenttothe2ndrespondent,videletter
ofthe1strespondentdated21101995.Whenthe2ndrespondentwasinstructedtosellthetrawlersbypublicauction,the2ndrespondentasanauthorised
auctioneer,, could not have sold it by tender and such a procedure is illegal. At any rate, directing the delivery of the vessels to the 3rd respondent was
violativeofSection139ofMerchantShippingAct.Since,nonoticewasissuedtothepetitioner,thesaleisinviolationofprinciplesofnaturaljusticeandso
calledoutstandingduesofRs.2,27,132/asclaimedby1strespondentisincorrect.Thesaleisalsoliabletobesetasidebeingcollusiveandunfair,sincethe
samehasbeensoldasascrap.The2ndrespondentalsohasissuedsaleorder,withoutcollecting25percentoftheamounttowardsexciseandcustomdutyas
perthelaw.TheimpugnedsalebytenderisalsoincontraventionofSection64oftheMajorPortTrustAct,1963,sinceintheinstantcasetherehas
beennorefusalorneglecttopayduestothe1strespondent.
3. The petitioner further stated that he had filed a separate suit in OS No.105 of 1996 on the file of III Additional Subordinate Judge,
Visakhapatnamforsettingasidethesaleorder.OnapplicationIANo.403of1996forinjunction,theCourthadgrantedstatusquoon2721996on
theconditiontheamountthatwasdisputedshallbedepositedintoCourtaccordingly,thepetitionerdepositedthesaidamountintheCourtas
directed.Meanwhile,thepetitioneralsofiledawritpetitioninWPNo.4578of1996questioningtheactofsellingthefishingvessels.However,this
Hon'ble Court refused to entertain the writ petition, as the same relief was already sought for in OS No.105 of 1996. Meanwhile, the 3rd
respondentalsofiledawritpetitioninWPNo.3993of1996seekingadirectiontodeliverthefishingtrawlersonpaymentofsalestaxetc.Butthis
Hon'ble Court clarified the interim order stating that the interim orders obtained by the 3rd respondent in WP MP No.4865 of 1996 in WP
No.3993of1996wouldnotnullifytheeffectoftheotherordersissuedbythecompetentCourtsrestrainingdelivery.Thecrewofthevesselsin
questionalsofiledaseparatewritpetitioninWPNo.7897of1996,contendingthattheirwageswerenotpaidandassuchthevesselscannotbe
deliveredtothe3rdrespondentandinthatwritpetition,alltheproceedingsincludingthedeliveryofthevesselswerestayed,andthesaidstay
was extended till 2541996. Certain members of the crew questioned the auction as illegal in WP Nos.4549 and 4670 of 1996. The said writ
petitions were disposed of. So far as OS No.105 of 1996 is concerned, the petitioner stated that the III Additional Subordinate Judge, before
whomthematterwaspendingwasraisinganobjectionastothemaintainabilityofthesuit,onthegroundthatthesuitwasfiledwithoutissuing
thestatutorynoticeascontemplatedunderSection120oftheMajorPortTrustAct.WritPetitionNo.4578of1996wasnotadmittedonlybecause
thesuitwaspending.Hence,petitionerfiledIANo.559of1996underOrder23Rule1(iii)(b)ofCPCforpermissiontowithdrawthesuitwith
permission to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter. The respondents, who are the defendants in that suit opposed such an
application.ButthelearnedSubordinateJudgerejectedthesaidpetitionforwithdrawal.Beingaggrievedbythesaidorder,thepetitionerfiled
CRPNo.1707of1996.Meanwhile,the3rdrespondentincollusionwith1stand2ndrespondentshaspurchasedthetwofishingtrawlersvaluedat
Rs.88,30,000/andRs.87,10,000/forapaltrysumofRs.11,74,000/andsuchasaleisillegal.InviewofoneorderortheotheroftheHighCourt,
orofSubordinateCourt,thevesselswerenotdeliveredto3rdrespondentandifthevesselsaredeliveredtohim,petitionerwouldbeputtogreat
lossandhardship.Itisinthesecircumstances,thepetitionerfiledthepresentwritpetition.
4.Byfilingcounters,theallegationsmadeinthewritpetitionaredeniedbyrespondents1,2and3.Insubstancetheystatedthatthepetitioner
purchased these two trawlers for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ and Rs.1,85,000/ on 681986. As per the request, the petitioner was given berthing
facilityofthosetwotrawlersinthefishingharbourandforthatpurpose,hewastopaycertainamountslikeberthchargesandwharfagecharges
aspertherules.Butthesamewasnotpaidregularly.Thepetitioneralsowasrequiredtopayenhancedbirthchargesandwharfagecharges,if
the trawlers continuously remain idle in the fishing harbour without operating the same. The petitioner failed to clear the bills within the
requiredperiodof14daysandhence,penalchargeswereleviedandultimatelythepetitionerbecameadefaulter.Therefore,demandwasraised
foranamountofRs.2,47,512/ason3181995,togetherwithinterestat18.5percentperannumandalsofurtherduesaccruingfrom191995
onwards,,witharequesttopayonorbefore2091995,failingwhichthetrawlerswouldbeseized.Infact,petitionervidehisletterdated228
1986agreedtopaythenecessarychargesonaccountofthesetwotrawlers.Buthedidnotpayit.Atanyrate,thepetitionerpaidcertaincharges
uptoMay,1993andthereafter,hefailedtopaytheberthcharges,wharfagechargesetc.onthetwotrawlers.Sincethepetitionerdidnotpaythe
berth charges at the rate prescribed as per the demands raised from time to time, the respondent No. 1 exercised the right provided under
Section123oftheMajorPortTrustActandconsequentlyseizedthetwotrawlersforthepurposeofsellingtheminpublicauctionafterexpiry
of5daysfromthedateofreceiptofnotice.Butthepetitionerfailedtocleartheoutstandingduesandaccordingly,hewasinformedon2231995
stating that if the outstanding dues of Rs.2,23,056/ as on 2821995 together with interest was not paid on or before 3131995, necessary action
wouldbeinitiatedforrealisingthesame.Sinceinspiteofsuchnotices,petitionerfailedtopaytheoutstandingdues,thetwotrawlerswereseized
on2441995stalingthat,theywouldbesoldinpublicauctionandthesaleproceedswouldbeadjustedtowardstheoutstandingdues.Thenotice
seizing the trawlers was acknowledged by the petitioner on 2641995, for that the petitioner submitted that he has already deposited
Rs.3,08,000/on 1781992 and the seizure may be lifted. For that, a reply was given by the Port Trust Authorities on 2651995 stating that the
file:///C:/Users/Oasis.com/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/ZXGPOD8U/violation%20of%2064.htm

2/4

1/28/2015

MANUPATRA

said amount of Rs.3,08,000/ deposited by him in 1992 was already adjusted towards the bills pertaining to that period and as such no balance
amountwasavailabletothecreditofthepetitioner,forthepurposeofadjustmentandthepetitionermaygetthereconciliationoftheaccounts
by sending a representative, and in fact petitioner did send a representative to verify the account and such representative found that the
accountswerecorrect.Itisfurtherstatedbythe1strespondentthatvideletterdated3171995,thepetitionerrequestedwaiveroftheenhanced
ratesandtostopthesaleofthetwotrawlers,andinreplytothat,ithasbeeninformedtothepetitionerthatifthepetitionerfailedtopaythe
outstanding dues of Rs.2,47,512/as on 3181995 with interest, on or before 2091995, the fishing trawlers would be sold in public auction. The
noticeofseizureoffishingtrawlersandauctioningofthesamewerealsopublishedinlocalnewspaperson2881995and591995.Petitioneralso
wasinformedbytheauthoritiesofthe1strespondentvideletterdated1111995thatthewaiverofpenalchargeswillnotbeconsideredunless
thepetitionerpaidalltheoutstandingduesatnormalchargestogetherwithaccruedinterest.Butthepetitionerdidnotpaytheberthchargesat
the normal rates seeking waiver. On the contrary petitioner raised a contention stating that there was already surplus amount with 1st
respondent authorities and, therefore, there were no arrears. They further stated that since the petitioner failed to pay the amounts, the Port
TrustAuthoritiesinstructedtheauctioneertosellthetwotrawlersbypublicauctionvidetheirletterdated21101995.Theauctioneerinvited
tendersbynewspaperpublicationon3121995.Thepetitionerwasalsoinformedon15111995abouttheauctionofthetrawlersason5121995.
On5121995tenderswereopened.Sincethebidamountofthe3rdrespondentwashighest,thebidwasacceptedandthesaleorderwasissued
in their favour on 921996 and accordingly the auction purchaser deposited an amount of Rs.11,74,000/ by way of demand draft on 2721996.
Theystatedthatsincethepetitionerwasdefaulter,therewasnooptiontothePortTrustAuthoritiestoexercisetheirstatutorypowerofselling
these two trawlers by calling for public tenders. They further stated that the Metal Scrap Trading Company (MSTC) was an authorised
auctioneer. The 1st respondent in their additional counter stated that MSTC conducted auction of about 15 fishing trawlers belonging to AP
FishingCorporationanditwascompetenttosellthesetrawlers.The1strespondentPortTrustAuthoritiesfurtherstatedthatason3131996
thetotalamountduewas4,05,000/alongwiththeinterestat18.5percentperannumandassuchtheyhaveexercisedthepowerunderSection
123oftheMajorPortTrustActforrealisingtheoutstandingduesandthosetwotrawlerswereauctionedafterduenoticeson28121994,243
1995,2441995,851995,2651995,691995and15111995andbygivingfill!andfairopportunity,andconsequentlytheauctionwasconducted
on5121995.TheyfurtherstatedthatfilingofwritpetitionsinWPNo.4549and4670of1996bytheallegedcrewofthetrawlershasnothingto
dowiththemeritsofthiswritpetition.TheyfurtherpointedoutintheircounterthatthesaidwritpetitionsweredismissedbythisCourtwitha
directiontopursuethematterswiththecivilCourt,sincebythattimethecrewalsofiledtheirsuitandalsootherproceedings.Theyalsostated
thatoutofRs.11,74,000/collectedthroughauction,theyhavedepositedRs.5,00,000/on1641996asperthedirectionsofHon'bleHighCourt,in
theCourtofIIMetropolitanMagistrate,VisakhapatnamtothecreditofCCNos.109and110of1996,sincethetrawlersweresoldon5121995
and delivery orders were issued by MSTC. The Port Trust had given a paper delivery order to the 3rd respondent on 941996 and meanwhile
thereisstayorderfromtheHon'bleHighCourton1041996andPortTrustdidnotphysicallyhandoverthetrawlerstotheauctionpurchaser
andaccordingly,therespondentsprayedforthedismissalofthewritpetition.
5.Tothesecounters,additionalreplieswerefiledbythepetitionerreiteratinghisstand.
6.HeardthelearnedCounselonbothsides.
7.ThelearnedCounselappearingforthepetitionercontendedthattherewasnoamountduetopaidtothePortTrustAuthoritiesonaccountof
these two trawlers and whatever the arrears that were due, stood paid and adjusted when the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.3,80,000/
videdepartmentaccountNo.671/780.ThelearnedCounselappearingfortherespondentscontendedthatthepaymentonthataccountwasona
differentaccountandtowardstheberthingandpenalchargesofthetwotrawlers,thereisaseparateaccount,onwhichthepetitionerwasdue
an amount of Rs.2,27,132/ and accordingly the same was demanded vide letter of the Port Trust, which the petitioner has not paid and
consequently the two trawlers were sold in public auction by calling tenders by duly advertising in the newspapers. Both sides relied upon
number of documents filed in the book of AnnexureC in support of their respective contentions. The petitioner also relied upon number of
documentstoshowthathehasinvestedhugesumforrepairingtwotrawlersafterhepurchasedthemfromrespondentNo.1intheyear1992.
Such alleged repairs were vehemently denied by the respondents contending that after purchasing the two trawlers from respondent No.1 in
publicauction,thepetitionerdidnoteffectanyrepairsatallandhewasgivenpermissionfordockingintheshippingharbour.Butthepetitioner
fellinarrearsbynotpayingthechargesdueaspertherules.Therefore,thetwotrawlersweresoldinpublicauctionbycallingfortenders.Both
the Counsels argued with reference to number of documents, asking the Court to add one figure and substract the other etc. During the
argumentsonly,theCourtpointedoutthatthejurisdictionofthisCourtunderArticle226oftheConstitutioncannotbeconvertedintoasuit
calling upon the Court to decide upon certain disputed questions of fact. At any rate, from the respective stand taken by the petitioner on his
sideandtherespondentsontheirside,Ifindthattheyarenotinagreementregardingtheamountspayable,theirrates,priortotheamendment
oftherulesandsubsequenttotheamendmentoftherulesandthequantumofarrearsdue,ifany.Therespondentsspecificallydeniedthecase
of the petitioner that the petitioner was not in arrears at all. Having regard to these circumstances it is difficult for this Court to come to any
conclusion one way or the other, either in favour of the petitioner or in favour of the respondents, without there being any evidence with
reference to the documents relied upon by both sides. According to the petitioner, the trawlers were sold without any notice to him. But
accordingtothePortTrustAuthorities,evenbeforeauction,anoticewasissuedtothepetitionerregardingtheseizureandthepetitionerwas
informedbynoticeregardingtheauctionproceedingstobeheld.This,thepetitionervehementlydenied.Evenonthisaspectalso,itisdifficult
forthisCourttogiveafindingonewayortheother,unlessevidenceisleadinthisbehalf.Intheabsenceofanyevidence,itisnotpossibleforthe
Courttoholdwhetherthetwotrawlersweresoldforapaltrysumasagainsttheiractualvalue,ascontendedbythepetitioner.Whatexactlyis
theamountthatwasspentbythepetitioner,onthebasisofthebillsandvouchersetc.,havegottobedeterminedonlyonthebasisofevidence
lead in the case. In fact, the petitioner had rightly instituted suit in OS No. 105 of 1996 challenging the impugned sale in favour of respondent
No.3.TheearlierwritpetitionfiledbythepetitionerinWPNo.4578of1996hasbeendismissedbytheDivisionBenchofthisCourtholdingthat
writpetitioncouldnotbeentertainedasthepetitionerhasalreadyfiledasuitinOSNo.105of1996forthesamerelief.Fromthisfactitisclear
that the petitioner did suffer an order at the hands of the Division Bench, observing that the writ petition could not be entertained since the
petitionerwaspursuingthesuit.TheDivisionBenchwhiledismissingthesaidwritpetitionhadnotgivenanypermissiontoinstitutethepresent
writpetition.However,thepetitionersoughtthewithdrawalofthesuitinOSNo.105of1996onthegroundthattherewassomeformaldefect.
AgainsttheorderofthetrialCourtdismissingthesaidpetitionforwithdrawalofthesuit,thepetitionerpreferredaCRPbeforethisCourtin
CRPNo.1707of1996,ThisCourtvideJudgmentandorderdated1571996allowedthepetitioner'sCRP,permittinghimtowithdrawthesuitin
OS No.105 of 1996 with a liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action by complying with the requirements of statutory notice. The
operativeportionofthesaidorderreadsasunder:
"Consideringthefactsstatedaboveandtherulingscitedabove,thisCourtisoftheconsideredviewthatifthenoticeisnotissuedbytheplaintiff
tothedefendant,whichisastatutorynoticeandifsuchmistakeisrealisedbytheplaintiffduringthependencyofthesuitandifhemakesthe
prayer to the Court seeking permission to withdraw the suit and seeks further permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action by
complying with the statutory requirements, then such defect has to be held as "formal defect" as contemplated under Order 23 Rule 1(3)(a)
CPC. Therefore, this Court allows the Civil Revision Petition and directed the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam to
allowthepetitionerhereintowithdrawthesuitandfileafreshsuitonthesamecauseofactionbycomplyingwiththerequirementsofstatutory
notice.Partiestobeartheirowncosts."
Fromtheaboveorderitisclearthatthepetitionerwasallowedtowithdrawthesuitwithalibertytofileafreshsuitonthesamecauseofaction,
but not a writ petition to this Court. From these admitted facts, it is clear that the petitioner suffered an order at the hands of the Division
Bench dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the same cannot be entertained and the petitioner also suffered an order of the learned
single Judge in the CRP No.1707 of 1996 permitting him to withdraw the suit with a liberty only to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of
action.Therefore,thepetitionercouldnothavefiledthiswritpetitionatall.Thepetitionerisboundbytheseorders.Theseorderscannotbeby
file:///C:/Users/Oasis.com/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/ZXGPOD8U/violation%20of%2064.htm

3/4

1/28/2015

MANUPATRA

passed by the petitioner as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in State of U.P. v. Labh Chand.
MANU/SC/0165/1994:(1993)IILLJ724SC.Inthatcasealsoawritpetitionchallengingtheorderofcompulsoryretirementwasdismissedbythe
DivisionBenchrefusingtoexerciseitsjurisdictionunderArticle226oftheConstitution,onthegroundthatthepetitionerhadotherforumsfor
theredressalofhisgrievances.ButthepetitionerthereinfiledasecondwritpetitionchallengingthesameorderbeforealearnedsingleJudge,
whoentertainedthewritpetition.FindingfaultwiththejudgmentofthelearnedsingleJudge,theHon'bleSupremeCourtobservedthatsucha
secondwritpetitioncouldnothavebeenentertainedbythelearnedsingleJudgeandsuchasecondwritpetitionwasnotmaintainable.Thesaid
judgmentoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtsquarelyappliestothefactsofthiscase.Hence,thepresentwritpetitionbeingasecondwritpetition
onthesamecauseofaction,cannotbeentertainedatail.Itisevennowopentothepetitionertofileafreshsuitonthesamecauseofactionas
pertheorderofthisCourtinCRPNo.1707of1996,ifheissoadvised,accordingtothelawoftheland.Moreover,asIhavealreadypointedout,
this writ petition involves disputed questions of facts, which cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction at all. In these circumstances, I do not
think that it is necessary for me to refer to the other contentions and judgments referred to by both sides regarding the merits of the case.
Hence,Ipasstheorderasunder:
8.WritPetitionisdismissed.However,itisopentothepetitionertoinstituteasuitaspertheorderofthisCourtinCRPNo.1707of1996onthe
samecauseofaction,ifheissoadvised,accordingtotaw.Allthecontentionsofrespectivepartiesarekeptopen.Intheabovecircumstances,I
directthepartiestobeartheirowncosts.

ManupatraInformationSolutionsPvt.Ltd.

file:///C:/Users/Oasis.com/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/ZXGPOD8U/violation%20of%2064.htm

4/4