A successive writ petition re-agitating the same grievance is not maintainable absent a fresh cause of action.

The petitioner had earlier filed WPS No. 3241 of 2017 seeking permission to resume duty as a dresser and payment of salary. On 19 August 2025, that petition was disposed of without granting relief; the Court directed the competent authority to conclude the departmental enquiry, if initiated, preferably within six months.

The petitioner later filed Contempt No. 529 of 2026, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh contempt petition, and WPS No. 4967 of 2026, which was withdrawn with liberty to pursue a pending representation.

In the present petition, he did not disclose those proceedings. The Court found that he sought substantially the same relief on the same cause of action and had identified no subsequent event or fresh cause of action.

1. Whether the present writ petition, seeking substantially the same relief on the same cause of action as an earlier petition, was maintainable

2. Whether any subsequent event or fresh cause of action justified the Court’s interference

The Court applied the principle that a writ petition is not maintainable where it seeks substantially the same relief on the same cause of action as an earlier petition and no subsequent event or fresh cause of action is shown.

The order does not cite any statute or precedent.

The Court noted that the petitioner had previously litigated the same underlying grievance and had also pursued contempt proceedings and a further writ petition, both of which were withdrawn in the circumstances recorded in the order.

He did not disclose those prior proceedings in the present petition, and counsel identified no subsequent event or fresh cause of action. The Court therefore treated the current petition as an attempt to re-agitate the same issue and held it not maintainable.

The petition was dismissed.