Second Writ Petition Barred by Abandonment of Remedy via Withdrawal of Earlier Petition Without Liberty.

Respondent No. 1, a Sub-Engineer, had his services terminated by the Municipal Corporation after the State found several appointments irregular.

While some juniors were reinstated and regularized, the Respondent was only reinstated in 2015 and granted Sthai Karmi status in 2017.

He filed W.P. No. 4079/2021 seeking parity with juniors, which a Single Judge allowed on 31.07.2025.

The Appellants challenged this order, revealing that the Respondent had previously filed W.P. No. 5445/2006 for the same relief, which was withdrawn on 09.12.2015 without liberty to file afresh.

This prior litigation was suppressed in the subsequent writ petition.

1. Whether the delay of 195 days in filing the writ appeal by the Municipal Corporation should be condoned.

2. Whether a second writ petition is maintainable when a previous petition for the same cause of action was withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh one.

3. Whether the suppression of the earlier litigation disentitles the Respondent from seeking equitable relief under Article 226.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, requiring "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay.

The Court relied on the principle established in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior, which extends the principle of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPM to writ proceedings, holding that a petitioner who withdraws a writ petition without liberty to file a fresh one is precluded from invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court again on the same cause of action.

The doctrine that a litigant seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 must approach the Court with "clean hands" through full disclosure of material facts.

The Court first condoned the 195-day delay, finding the administrative decision-making process constituted a sufficient cause.

On merits, the Court found that the Respondent's failure to disclose W.P. No. 5445/2006 was a material suppression that went to the "root of the matter".

The Court rejected the Respondent's plea that the omission was a bona fide mistake by counsel, emphasizing that once the remedy under Article 226 is abandoned without liberty, the petitioner is legally barred from re-agitating the same issue.

The Court reasoned that the Single Judge had granted relief without being apprised of this bar, and had the true facts been disclosed, the subsequent petition would have been dismissed as non-maintainable under the Sarguja Transport precedent.

It held that the Respondent was guilty of material suppression and that the second writ petition was not maintainable.

Consequently, the Court imposed costs of ₹5,000 on Respondent No. 1 to be deposited with the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority for failing to approach the Court with clean hands.