The principles of res judicata apply to writ proceedings, and a petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the validity of the same order by successive petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

R. N. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for a writ of certiorari to auash the election of the opposite party No. 1 as the Chairman of the Hatadihi Panchayat Samiti.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the opp. party No. 1 was elected as Chairman of the said Samiti in 1961 and continued to hold that office upto 1967. That constituted the first term of Chairmanship of opposite party No. 1. In 1968. election took place for the said office. The opposite party No. 1, was again elected and was to continue in office upto 1971. That was his second term. On 15th of December, 1970, he resigned. On 10th of January. 1971, election took place and opposite party No. 1 was again elected. This was his third term. It is conceded that these terms are consecutive.

( 3 ) UNDER Section 16 (3) (a) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act of 1959 (Act 7 of 1960) no person is eligible to be the Chairman of a Samiti for more than two consecutive terms. In the case of Madan Mohan Pani v. State of Orissa. AIR 1971 orissa 283, this Court dealt with the pro-visions of Section 16 (3) (a) of the Act and held that in similar circumstances as these, the terms would be held to be consecutive. There is no dispute among counsel before us appearing for all the parties that in terms of Section 16 (3) (a) of the Panchavat Samiti Act and as interpreted by the said decision the opposite party No. 1 is not eligible to hold the office of Chairman for the present term. In view of this situation, ordinarily the petitioner should have succeeded and the election of the opposite party No. 1 should have been quashed. On behalf of the opposite parties, however, it has been contended that in the facts of the case no relief can be granted.

( 4 ) ON 21-1-1971, the petitioner had filed a writ application in this Court (O. J. C. No. 91 of 1971) challenging the election of opposite party No. 1. In the said application he raised the opposite party No. 1's ineligibility as a ground of attack against his election to the office of the Chairman. During the pendency of that application, a Bench of this Court decided the case reported in AIR 1971 Orissa 283 and iudgment thereof was delivered on 9-2-1971. In some of the local law reports, the judgment was published on 26-2-1971. The petitioner, notwithstanding the elucidation of the legal position by this Court, did not raise the contention that the election of the opposite party No. 1 was contrary to the provisions of Section 16 (3) (a) of the Act. On 21-6-1971, his writ application was rejected on merits. The present writ petition has been filed on 30th of June 1971. This writ application has been argued as one for a writ of quo warranto and the opposite parties contended that the application is barred by res judicata; because on the earlier occasion when the petitioner came before this Court, the present contention was available to be raised and was not raised. It is next contended that the petitioner's conduct has to be examined and laches on his part, acquiescence, the delay in moving this Court in the matter, the fact that a statutory remedy was open to him to raise the present dispute are features which should be taken note of to refuse relief to the petitioner.

( 5 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court have on more than one occasion taken the view that principles of res judicata apply to writ proceedings. In the case of devilal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam, AIR 1965 SC 1150, Gajendragadkar, C. J. , delivering the judgment of the Constitution Bench stated:--

"there can be no doubt that the fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens are a significant feature of our Constitution and the High Courts under Article 226 are bound to protect these fundamental rights. There can also be no doubt that if a case is made out for the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 in support of a citizen's fundamental rights, the High Court will not hesitate to exercise that jurisdiction. But, the question as to whether a citizen should