1. Writ petition filed appearing to be similar to an existing public interest litigation dealing with the same subject matter. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 2415
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma and B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
Public Union for Civil Liberties - Petitioner
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu and others - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 3922 of 1985 with W.P. (Crl.) No. 153 of 1982, W.P.(C) No. 166 of 1995
Decided On : 23-08-1996
Important Points
The court discouraged the filing of multiple writ petitions on the same subject matter to avoid unnecessary duplication of legal proceedings.
Subject
Civil Law - Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Headnote
PIL - Multiplicity of Writ Petitions - The court discouraged the filing of multiple writ petitions on the same subject matter, emphasizing the need to avoid unnecessary duplication of legal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition similar to an earlier PIL matter, prompting the court to discourage the filing of multiple writ petitions on the same subject matter.
Finding of the Court:
The court discouraged the multiplication of writ petitions on the same subject matter, emphasizing the need to avoid unnecessary duplication of legal proceedings.
Issues: Multiplicity of writ petitions on the same subject matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to avoid unnecessary duplication of legal proceedings and discouraged the filing of multiple writ petitions on the same subject matter.
Final Decision: The court requested senior advocates to examine the matter and report the correct position for making appropriate orders in the writ petition.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Court observed that there is no occasion to multiply the number of writ petitions when an earlier public interest litigation deals with the same subject. (Para 1 )
3. Amicus curiae directed to examine the matter and report the correct position for further orders. (Para 1 , 2 )
4. How does the court handle multiple writ petitions dealing with the same subject matter as a pending public interest litigation?
The court may avoid multiplying the number of writ petitions by requesting amicus curiae to examine the similar matters and report the correct position to facilitate appropriate orders. (Para 1 )
JUDGMENT :
W.P. (C) No. 166/95 - Aman Hingoroni v. Union of India & Ors.
1. As stated by the petitioner who appears in person, this writ petition appears to be of the same kind as W.P. No. 3922/85. If that be so, there is no occasion to multiply the number of writ petitions since the earlier writ petition (No. 3922/85) is also a PIL matter dealing with the same subject. Shri Kapil Sibal Shri A.K. Ganguly, Sr. Advocates, who have been requested by us to appear as amicus curiae in W.P. No. 3922/85, are, therefore, requested to examine this matter and report the correct position for making the appropriate orders in this writ petition.
W.P. (C) No. 3922/85, W.P. (Crl.) No. 153/82 and W.P. (C) No. 166/95.
2. List on 4.10.1996.
