Important Point
It is not a permissible practice to challenge the same order over again after withdrawing the Special Leave Petition without obtaining permission of the court for withdraw­ing it with liberty to move for special leave again subsequently.

Order

Delay condoned

2. Shashtri Bridge at Allahabad runs across River Ganga. Motor vehicles plying on National Highway No. 2 and passing through the said bridge have to pay toll charges. The bridge is named after Lal Bahadur Shas­htri, former Prime Minister of India who is well remembered for his honesty and simplicity. River Ganga is adored to India with reverence in the belief that her holy water cleanses the believers of their sins. Ironically, that bridge built across that river was used by the petitioner as a means to amass wealth dishonestly. Unfortunately, such unwholesome conduct was facilitated on account of certain orders passed by the Allahabad High Court. Petitioner, who flourished in the aforesaid wealth having been insulated with the court orders against any outside interference for a long time, could not continue preening in such opulence as he was cought in the meanwhile. He is now being asked to return the ill-gotten wealth. Strategy of subterfuge played by him even thereafter did not work for long and he is now facing stringent measures for recovery of the booty.

3. Initially petitioner was allowed to collect the toll at specified rates for a period of one year which expired on 23.3.1991. For a succeeding period of three years petitioner competed with other bid­ders in a public auction. When his bid was not accepted by the author­ities he filed Writ Petition No. 32974 of 1991 before the Allahabad High Court and got an interim order by which he was permitted to continue to collect toll charges from vehicles passing over the bridge. By a notification issued by the Government of India on 19.2.1992 the rates of toll were raised. The idea then dawned on the petitioner to take advantage of the enhanced rates. He then filed another Writ Petition (WP No. 22439/92) praying for permitting him to collect toll at the revised rates. A single Judge (Mr. Justice A.P. Singh) before whom the said writ petition came up for admission passed an extraordinary order which reads thus:

“Admit.

Issue Notice.

Learned standing counsel prays for and is granted one month’s time to file counter affidavit, three weeks thereafter are allowed to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter. In the meantime the petitioner will be allowed by the respondents to charge toll fees on the rates notified by the Government notification dated 19.2.1992 Annexure 4 to the writ petition. The respondents are, howev­er, restrained from enhancing the bid money of the theka till further orders of this Court.”

4. But the said order remained alive only for a period of less than 2 years because this Court interfered with it by an order dated 16.3.1994 while disposing of two SLPs. This Court then observed thus:

“It need be recorded that in the matter of realisation of public revenue, courts have been and should remain reluctant to stay recovery unless an exceptional case is made out. No such exceptional case is made out here. The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside leaving it open to the State to take such effective steps as are necessary to recover public revenues as due. The High Court shall now proceed with the main matter and dispose it of in accordance with law.”

5. Undaunted by the above order passed by this Court the petitioner filed a new writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad and a Divi­sion Bench (Dubey and A.P. Singh, JJ.) passed an order in it on 23.3.1997 which too is unusual and it needs extraction here. The order reads:

“Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted one month’s time to file Counter Affidavit. Rejoinder Affidavit may be filed within anoth­er three weeks. List for orders thereafter on 16th May, 1994. Status quo with res­pect to collection of fees over Shashtri Bridge situated at River Ganga on National Highway No. 2 at Allahabad.”

6. The State of U.P. challenged the aforesaid order before this Court in SLP (C) No. 9835/94. However, while the SLP was pending another Division Bench of the High Court vacated the a