JUDGMENT :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

2. The writ petitioner has sought quashing of letter dated 24.08.2016 issued by the Executive Engineer, Tax Division, Building Construction Department whereby and whereunder there is an order for deduction of a sum of Rs. 20,98,757/- (Twenty Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Seven) only as house rent from the petitioner. The same has been issued pursuant to the directive of the Estate officer dated 20.07.2006. The demands have been made in view of the fact that the petitioner overstayed in a Government accommodation allotted to him in his capacity as Member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. The petitioner claims that though he had resigned from membership of the Assembly he was entitled to retain the accommodation in his capacity as Member of the State Legislature Research and Training Bureau (Rajya Vidhayee Adhyayan and Prasikshan Bureau).

3. Counter affidavit and rejoinder has been filed in the instant proceeding. On completion of the pleadings, it appears that earlier also the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition seeking quashing of letter dated 21.09.2015 whereby and whereunder rent 14,14,118 (Fourteen Lacs Fourteen Thousand One Hundred Eighteen), being the amount outstanding till that date for overstaying in the same government accommodation was demanded. The same was numbered as CWJC No. 19237 of 2015.

4. Writ petition bearing CWJC No. 19237 of 2015 was withdrawn by the petitioner on 06.01.2016. The order of the Court reads as follows:-

"Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, counsel for the petitioner in presence of the counsel for the respondents seeks permission of the Court to withdraw this writ application. There being no objection by the respondents, the writ application is dismissed as withdrawn."

5. Admitted facts emerging from the pleadings is the petitioner has also raised the same issue in Civil proceedings bearing Title Suit No. 03 of 2016. Certain orders of status quo were passed in the said proceedings. The same was assailed by the State by filing Misc. Appeal No. 14 of 2016 before the learned District Judge, Patna. On 18.4.2016, the learned District Judge, Patna remanded the matter back for fresh hearing. The petitioner has already vacated the government accommodation and shifted in his newly constructed house.

6. Neither the State nor the petitioner has placed on record the further developments after remand of the matter by the Appellate Court in Misc. Appeal No. 14 of 2016. This Court, therefore, would not express any opinion on the merits of the matter.

7. This Court, however, would observe that the demand of rent on account of the same reason, being overstayal in the same government accommodation, however, in respect of an amount calculated till an earlier date was challenged by the petitioner in CWJC No. 19237 of 2015 which was unconditionally withdrawn by the petitioner. In between the two writ petitions only the quantification of rent varies. Such variation in the quantification /amount of rent is occasioned only due to lapse of time in the meantime. In the instant case, the amount is greater as it has been calculated till the date of filing of the instant writ petition. The issue, however, is one and the same; whether the petitioner would be liable for paying rent in respect of the same government accommodation on account of overstayal since he ceased to be a Member of the Assembly subsequent to his resignation dated 14.3.2014. The earlier writ petition, wherein, the petitioner had raised an issue that he would not be liable to pay the rent has been withdrawn without any liberty. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is estopped from filing a second writ petition, having waived his opportunity to assail the decision by withdrawing the earlier writ petition unconditionally.

8. Considering maintainability of a second writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constituti