The withdrawal of an earlier writ petition with liberty to pursue other legal remedies does not entitle the petitioner to file a second writ petition challenging the same impugned order after a significant lapse of time, especially after suffering adverse orders in other forums.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to Order RC.No.1422/IE-2/95, dated 23.08.1996 issued by the respondent quash the same and direct the respondent to hand over plot in DP.No.155-A, Thirumazhisai Village or any other equivalent plot in favour of the petitioner.)

1. The petitioner herein filed this writ petition, challenging the order passed by the respondent dated 23.08.1996, cancelling the allotment of developed plot No. DP.No.155-A in industrial estate, Thirumazhisai to the petitioner.

2. According to the writ petitioner, the predecessor of the petitioner namely Dhanplast Company was allotted a developed plot in industrial estate Thirumazhisai. The said predecessor company was later renamed as “Technopac Transworld” which was part of “VVD” group of companies and finally as Ecoclean Adsorbent Carbons Private Limited, the petitioner herein. According to the petitioner, he had requested the respondent to furnish the site plan but the same was not furnished till date.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further averred that instead of furnishing him with copy of site plan the respondent abruptly cancelled the allotment made to the petitioner's predecessor by the impugned order dated 28.08.1996. The order is challenged by the writ petitioner mainly on the ground that the respondent had suppressed the fact that the plot No. DP.No.155-A which was allotted in favour of the petitioner's predecessor was originally reserved for common purpose in the sanctioned layout and the respondent had allotted the same in favour of the petitioner by inadvertence. It was further submitted that the petitioner was all along ready to commence industrial activity, but it was the respondent who failed to furnish the site plan and ultimately the impugned order of cancellation of allotment was made stating that the petitioner had not shown any interest in taking possession of the developed block and getting the building approval etc.

4. In nutshell, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reasoning given by the respondent for cancelling the plot allotted to petitioner's predecessor is not correct and hence the order is liable to be set aside.

5. The respondent filed a detailed counter and resisted the writ petition. The first objection of the respondent would be that the writ petitioner earlier filed a similar writ petition challenging the impugned order in W.P.No.6999 of 1998 and the same was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to pursue appropriate remedy before the State Consumer Commission. Thereafter, the complaint preferred by the petitioner before the State Consumer Commission in O.P.No.166 of 1998 was dismissed by order dated 31.01.2008. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the National Consumer Commission and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 14.07.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this second writ petition, challenging the very same order, after a lapse of 15 years.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that having withdrawn the earlier writ petition with the liberty to pursue appropriate remedy before the State Consumer Commission, it is not open to the writ petitioner to maintain the second writ petition that too after a lapse of 15 years.

7. In nutshell, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed not only on the ground of laches, but also on the point of res judicata and re-litigation. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that plot No.DP.No.155- A allotted to M/s. Dhanplast Company a Partnership Firm. As per the allotment order any change in management must be approved by the respondent but in the present case, the change of management was not approved by the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out h