A subsequent writ petition seeking substantially similar relief is not maintainable after prior writ and contempt proceedings.

The appellant, a Panchayat Secretary, had earlier filed WPS No. 2986 of 2025 seeking consideration of his representation concerning regularisation.

The writ petition was disposed of on 30.04.2025 with a direction to the Deputy Director to consider and decide the representation within the stipulated period.

The appellant thereafter initiated Contempt Case No. 1324 of 2025, which was decided on 17.02.2026.

Subsequently, he filed WPS No. 4173 of 2026 alleging that a State-Level Committee constituted on 24.03.2025 to consider the regularisation of Panchayat Secretaries had failed to take a decision.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the subsequent writ petition, holding that the grievance had already been considered in the earlier proceedings and that substantially similar relief was not maintainable.

The appellant challenged that dismissal in the present writ appeal. The three-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

Whether the subsequent writ petition seeking a direction for expeditious decision by the State-Level Committee was maintainable, notwithstanding the appellant’s earlier writ petition and contempt proceedings concerning consideration of his representation?

Whether the learned Single Judge committed an illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in dismissing the subsequent writ petition on the ground that substantially similar relief had already been considered?

The Court applied the principle of finality of judicial proceedings and the rule that a subsequent writ petition seeking substantially similar relief, after disposal of an earlier writ petition and initiation of contempt proceedings, is not maintainable.

The Court also proceeded on the scope of appellate interference under Article 226/227 principles, namely, that a Division Bench should not interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in the absence of an illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The appellant contended that the subsequent writ petition was based on a fresh cause of action arising from the constitution and alleged inaction of the State-Level Committee, and that he sought only a time-bound decision rather than reconsideration of the earlier relief.

The State opposed the appeal and supported the order of the learned Single Judge.

On examining the earlier writ petition, the contempt proceedings, the impugned order, and the material on record, the Division Bench accepted the learned Single Judge’s conclusion that the appellant’s grievance had already been addressed through the earlier direction to the competent authority and the subsequent contempt proceedings.

The Court therefore treated the later writ petition as seeking substantially similar relief and found no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error warranting appellate interference.

The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed, and no costs were awarded.