Repeated filing of writ petitions with the same prayer amounts to an abuse of the process of law, and a writ petition is not a suitable remedy for claiming damages.

After hearing this petition, this Court on 01.10.2015 passed the following orders in this petition:

"1. This petition was heard on 23.09.2015 and the judgment was reserved. However, while going through the record of the petition and pleadings of the parties, it transpired that the respondents in paragraph 5 of their reply have taken a plea that the petitioner in the present writ petition has sought the same reliefs as had been prayed for by him in his other writ petitions, SWP nos. 411/2001, 142/2002, 1941/2003 and 924/2009. In fact, pursuant to an identical statement made at the Bar on 02.09.2015, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed the Registry to call the record of the petitioner's decided writ petition, SWP no. 1941/2003, and the case was directed to be listed higher up in the next regular cause list. The Registry reported that the record of SWP no. 1941/2003 had been damaged due to devastating floods of 07.09.2014. However, on the next date of hearing, on the submission of the petitioner that the petition could be considered without the record of SWP no. 1941/2003, the Court ordered its listing for hearing in the regular cause list as case no.1. That is how it came up for hearing before this Court on 23.09.2015. The reason for which the Coordinate Bench had earlier called the records of SWP no. 1941/2003 was not brought to the notice of this Court by either of the parties while they advanced their respective arguments.

2. At the hearing, learned counsel for the respondents referred to the contents of paragraph 5 of the reply and submitted that the Supreme Court in Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 1 SCC 560, and a few oilier cases has laid down that repeated filing of writ petitions on the same issue or with a similar prayer is an abuse of the process of court/law and it amounts to criminal contempt. He submitted that in the aforesaid case the Apex Court also awarded costs of Rs. 50,000/- against, the; appellants. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, since the petitioner has filed repeated writ petitions for the; same relief, this is a fit case where the law laid down by the Apex Court deserves to be applied with all its rigour.

3. The sole relief prayed for by the petitioner in this petition is that the respondents may be directed to pay him an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the pain etc. caused to him on account of the 'arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional grade slashment order' (passed against him by them).

4. If it is true that the petitioner has made such prayer in his other writ petitions, or any one of them, then the matter is not so simple and the point cannot be dealt with casually. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the matter would assume enormous proportions and may entail serious consequences, including award of costs on the petitioner, if not more; at least, equivalent to what the Apex Court has ordered in the aforesaid case. It is not, however, clearly disclosed whether the aforesaid writ petitions are still pending or have been decided and disposed of. Whatever be the case, the records of these writ petitions need to be necessarily gone through to ascertain the reality in relation to the point raised herein by the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The Registry has already reported that the record of writ petition, SWP no. 1941/2003, got damaged in last year's floods. The record of the other three writ petitions, SWP nos. 411/2001, 142/2002, and 924/2009, mentioned in paragraph 5 of the reply filed by the respondents, had not been called for by the Court, nor has the Registry made any report thereabout. Therefore, in order to do full justice in the matter, I think it would be appropriate to provided as under:

(i) The Registrar Judicial shall place the records of the three writ petitions, SWP nos. 411/2001,142/2002, and 924/2009, whether decided and disposed of or not, before the Court for perusal thereof to f