The principle of res judicata bars a subsequent suit between the same parties on the same cause of action.

R. P. SETHI, J. :-

1. On the heap of corpses of the human society, the petitioners under the garb of this petition, have again made a venture to raise their wealthy glittering castles by continuing to crush stones and inflate their money bags. The present petition is an abortive attempt on the part of the wealthy section of the society, seeking the assistance of this Court to sacrifice the human health and welfare of thousands of masses, whose health, safety and life has continuously been endangered by the petitioners and the alike. Despite judgment of this Court in Ishwar Singh V/s. State of Haryana and others, Civil Writ Petition No. 7418/1994, decided on July 10, 1995, a prayer has been made in this writ petition for restraining the respondent/State and the authorities from closing down the stone crushers of the petitioners, situated around the city of Gurgaon, near the Capital of India.

2. It is submitted that as in the earlier litigation, this Court had not taken note of the study Report on Stone Crushers at National Level, conducted by the Central Pollution Control Board and National Productivity Counsel of India, the whole of the matter required reconsideration.In the aforesaid litigation, initiated in the public interest, this Court while allowing the writ petition filed against the owners of the stone crushers had directed :

"1) That all the private respondents, who are owners of the stone crushers, shall close down their stone crushing business and shift them to the identified zones, positively within a period of one month from the date of this judgment;2) The State Government shall take immediate steps for closure and shifting of stone crushers to the identified zones and issue licenses only in favour of such persons who decide to shift their business of stone crusher to the identified zones; 3) That all the stone crushers located at present locations shall be deemed to have been closed after one month and shall not be permitted to carry on business of stone crusher on any ground or pretext whatsoever;4) That the private respondents shall not purchase and the petitioner shall not sell his land, situated in identified zones for the purposes of installation of stone crushers or any other identical and ancillary purpose.5) That the citizens of the area are authorised to prefer their claims for grant of compensation; for those persons, who are proved to have suffered due to pollution caused by stone crushers owned and managed by private respondents. Claims for such compensation may be entertained within two months after such right is notified to the inhabitants of the area. Such claims, if preferred, shall be considered and disposed of within three months and if any of the respondents-stone crushers is found to be responsible for making compensation, the same shall be paid by him within a period of two months thereafter; failing which his license for carrying on stone crusher business shall be cancelled. It is expected that while issuing the notification inviting the claims for compensation, the respondent/State shall appoint an authority for entertainment and adjudication of such claims for compensation. It would be appreciated if the persons having judicial background is appointed as such authority; 6) That even though the State of Punjab has not been a party before us, yet copy of this judgment shall be served upon the Chief Secretary of the State of Punjab for taking up appropriate steps as per our observations made hereinabove."

3. Ishwar Singh, a public spirited person, had approached this Court on the basis of judgment of the Supreme Court in M. C. Mehta V/s. Union of India, (1992) 2 SCC 256 : (AIR 1992 SC 382) and subsequent notification of the Government of Haryana issued on 4-8-1992. The Government in the aforesaid notification had declared that the stone crusher units in the State of Haryana have been causing grave air pollution and hazards to traffic and human health, which necessitated that