A second writ petition on the same cause of action is not maintainable, and the court must allow arbitration proceedings to resolve disputes.

ORDER :

1. This Petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad dated 27.03.2023 in Writ-C-No. 8421 of 2023 by which the petition filed by the petitioner herein came to be rejected on the ground that the same was a second petition filed on the same cause of action and therefore not maintainable.

2. The impugned order reads thus:-

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner by the instant petition seeks the following relief:

"I. Kindly, issue an order or direction, directing in the nature of mandamus to stay the effect and operation of impugned recovery letter dated 06.03.2019 of Rs. 2,71,02,525/-issued by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. 2) till disposal of arbitral proceeding for supply of 6 quad cable."

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, at the outset, points out that for the same cause of action the petitioner has approached this Court by filing Writ-C No. 18574 of 2022, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 08.07.2022.

In the circumstances, the second petition for the same cause of action is not maintainable.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”

3. We have heard Mr. Rajesh Banati, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, the learned ASG for the respondents.

4. We take notice of the order dated 08.07.2022 by which the first writ petition filed by the petitioner herein before the High Court i.e Writ Petition No. 18574 of 2022 came to disposed of.

5. The order dated 08.07.2022 disposing of writ petition number 18574 of 2022, reads thus:-

“Sri Manu Vardhan learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

Heard Sri R.K. Ojha learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri K.S. Ojha learned counsel for the petitioner.

The present petition has been filed with the prayer for quashing of the recovery letters dated 06.03.2019 whereby the petitioner was intimated about the amount which is due for recovery towards general damage. The admitted fact of the matter is that the petitioner herein has approached the Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the condition of the contract, raising a dispute with regard to the recovery initiated vide letter dated 06.03.2019. An application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act' 1996 for interim protection has also been filed before the Arbitrator.

It is sought to be submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner herein has sent letters/reminders seeking attention of the Arbitrator to decide the pending application under Section 17 of the Act' 1966 but no action has been taken yet. The prayer is to issue a direction to the Arbitral Tribunal/Arbitrator to decide the pending application and, in the meantime, to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action.

Considering the said prayer, we may note that the order sheet of the Arbitral Tribunal is not before us and, as such, we cannot find out the reason for delay in disposal of the application under Section 17 of the Act' 1966.

However, considering the limited prayer made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument, we dispose of the present petition with the only observation that the Arbitrator, whose description has been given in paragraph No.'9' of the writ petition, shall make an endeavour to decide the pending application under Section 17 of the Act' 1996, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

6. we are of the view that the High Court committed no error in passing the impugned order. Even otherwise the entire dispute is at-large before the Arbitrator. The petitioner must cooperate with the arbitral Tribunal and allow the arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that his client shall definitely cooperate in the arbitration proceedings.

8. There is a recovery of Rs. 2,71,02,525/-from the petiti