Successive writ petitions for identical reliefs are not maintainable when prior orders have addressed the grievance.

The Appellant, a person with a 40% permanent locomotor disability, filed various vigilance complaints (Nos. 112564/2025, 112565/2025, and 112566/2025) on the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) portal regarding alleged insurance fraud and regulatory inaction by the Department of Financial Services (DFS), IRDAI, and the RBI

The CVC closed or forwarded these complaints to departmental authorities without issuing speaking orders, which the Appellant claimed violated CVC Master Guidelines

The Appellant initially filed W.P.(C) No. 15753/2025, which was disposed of on 13.01.2026 with a direction to approach the Insurance Ombudsman

Instead of challenging that order, the Appellant filed a subsequent Writ Petition seeking identical reliefs, namely the reopening and fresh inquiry of the same CVC complaints

The learned Single Judge dismissed this second petition, noting the previous order and granting liberty to approach the CVC for any remaining grievances

The Appellant then filed this intra-court appeal

1. Whether a second writ petition is maintainable when it seeks reliefs identical to those sought in a previously disposed of writ petition that remains unchallenged

2. Whether the Single Judge’s order, relegating the Appellant to the CVC or Ombudsman, was legally sustainable given the Appellant’s claims of mechanical closure of complaints

The Court applied the principle of finality of judicial orders and the procedural impropriety of filing successive writ petitions for identical reliefs.

Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, and the CVC Master Guidelines on Complaint Handling and Vigilance Examination regarding the procedure for scrutiny of complaints

Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017, which provide a specialized grievance redressal mechanism for insurance-related disputes

The Court observed that the reliefs sought in the current Writ Petition were identical to those sought and addressed in W.P.(C) No. 15753/2025

The Court noted that the Appellant failed to challenge the order dated 13.01.2026, which had already directed him to seek a remedy through the Insurance Ombudsman

It reasoned that since the earlier order reached finality and specifically addressed the grievances regarding the CVC complaints, the Appellant could not bypass that order by filing a fresh petition for the same cause of action

The Court rejected the Appellant’s contention that the causes of action were distinct, emphasizing that the underlying grievance regarding the CVC's handling of his complaints was the core of both proceedings

Furthermore, the Court held that the Single Judge correctly found no merit in issuing fresh directions when the existing directions from the previous order adequately covered the Appellant's grievances

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's order, stating that no infirmity existed as the previous directions to approach the Ombudsman and the liberty to approach the CVC provided adequate legal recourse

The Court clarified that if the Appellant remained aggrieved by the order in the first writ petition, his remedy lay in challenging that specific order rather than initiating a new proceeding