JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

1. By means of this writ petition, the writ petitioner has challenged the “Notice of Intention to Terminate” dated 13.5.2019, issued by the Commissioner, Power, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar to the petitioner in terms of Memorandum of Agreement dated 14.9.2017 entered into between the parties.

2. Mr. D. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate by referring to annexure 26 of the writ petition submits that the petitioner herein had earlier approached this court by filing WP(C) No. 192 (AP)/2019, wherein the same notice of Intention to Terminate dated 13.5.2019 was challenged which writ petition, however, was withdrawn on 22.7.2019 without any further leave of this court to approach this court again. Mr. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate by relying upon the decision rendered by hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, (1987) 1 SSC 5 submits that since the writ petition was withdrawn without any leave of this court to file a fresh writ petition, the present writ petition would not be maintainable.

3. On the other hand, Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent writ petition for the same cause of action would be maintainable even though the earlier writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner without taking leave of the court to institute a fresh writ petition. In support of the submission so made, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions of the hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of the Gauhati High Court:

(1) V.D. Barot v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SSC 668, paragraph No. 4

(2) Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457, paragraph No. 19

(3) Prabhakar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1985 Supp SCC 432 : AIR 1986 SC 210, paragraph No. 23

(4) Joseph Pothen v. State of Kerala, AIR 1965 SC 1514, paragraph No. 5

(5) Tripura Forest Development and Plantation Corporation Ltd v. Jiban Kr. Das Gupta, (2003) 1 Gau LT 225, paragraph No. 7

(6) MukulKr. Hazarika v. State of Assam, (2003) 3 Gau LT 675, paragraph No. 16.

4. The relevant paragraphs referred to by Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the decisions cited herein above are quoted herein below:

(1) V.D. Barot v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SSC 668:

“4. We cannot subscribe to the view expressed by the High Court in the order under appeal. In the first place the High Court ought to have examined whether the rejection of the representation was justified in the circumstances set forth in the order impugned in the High Court. Secondly, the matter had not been abandoned as such but to enable the appellant to make representation in the matter, the petition had been withdrawn. That course of action does not amount to abandonment of the matter. Moreover, such a matter should not be dealt with in a hypertechnical manner but on the totality of the circumstances arising in the case of the appellant. Hence, we set aside the order of the High Court and remit the writ petition to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed accordingly.”

(2) Daryao v. State of Utter Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457:

“19. We, must now proceed to state our conclusion on the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. We hold that if a writ petition filed by a party under article 226 is considered on the merits as and contested matter, and is dismissed the decision, thus, pronounced would continue to bind the parties unless it is otherwise modified or reversed by appeal or other appropriate proceedings permissible under the Constitution. It would not be open to a party to ignore the said judgment and move this court under article 32 by an original petition made on the same facts and for obtaining the same or similar orders or writs. If the petition filed in the High Court under article 226 is dismissed not on the merits