A fresh writ petition on unchanged facts constitutes abuse of process absent a fresh cause of action.

The Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, ostensibly in public interest, seeking directions to the Directorate of Education, GNCTD, to review the recognition and continued operation of Respondent No. 6 school and to pass a reasoned decision regarding continuation, suspension, or withdrawal of its recognition.

The challenge was founded solely on the allegation that the school had been constructed in an industrial area where construction of a school was impermissible, and that its recognition was therefore unlawful.

The Petitioner had previously filed W.P.(C) 7544/2025 seeking, inter alia, an order restraining the running of the same school in the industrial area and challenging the alleged unauthorized construction.

That petition was withdrawn on 2 July 2026 with liberty to institute a fresh petition if a fresh cause of action arose, after the Court was informed that MCD’s demolition orders had been challenged before the Appellate Tribunal, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“ATMCD”).

The school had challenged the demolition order and rejection of regularization before the ATMCD, which had granted a stay against demolition. The appeal remained pending, and the Petitioner had sought impleadment in those proceedings.

The Court found that the circumstances remained unchanged since the withdrawal of the earlier petition and that no fresh cause of action had arisen.

Whether the present writ petition was maintainable when the Petitioner had earlier withdrawn substantially identical proceedings with liberty to approach the Court only upon the emergence of a fresh cause of action, and the underlying appeal before the ATMCD remained pending?

Whether the institution of the present petition, based on the same grievance and without any material change in circumstances, amounted to an abuse of the process of law and the Court?

The Court applied the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, together with the procedural principle that a litigant who withdraws a petition with liberty to institute fresh proceedings may do so only upon the occurrence of the specified fresh cause of action.

The Court further applied the doctrine that repetitive proceedings founded on the same cause of action, particularly while the substantially determinative proceedings remain pending before a competent appellate forum, may constitute an abuse of the process of law and the Court.

Although the Petitioner invoked the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, the Delhi Development Act, 1957, and planning and municipal regulations, the Court did not adjudicate the substantive legality of the school’s recognition or construction.

The Court compared the relief sought in the present petition with that sought in W.P.(C) 7544/2025 and found them substantially similar.

The Petitioner expressly acknowledged that the sole basis of the present challenge was the school’s alleged location in an industrial area, which was the same grievance raised in the earlier petition.

Since the earlier petition had been withdrawn with liberty to file afresh only if a fresh cause of action arose, and the ATMCD appeal against the demolition and regularization orders was still pending with an interim stay operating, there had been no material change in circumstances.

The Court therefore held that the present proceedings improperly sought to revive the same dispute and constituted an abuse of process.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with costs of ₹5,000, payable by the Petitioner to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association within one month; failing payment, the Registry was directed to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue.

The pending application was also disposed of.