The court emphasized the importance of preventing abuse of the court process and applying the principles of res judicata to restrain frivolous and misconceived petitions.

DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a unique case where the petitioner has considered to have a licence to abuse the process of the Court and approached the Court without complying with the order passed by this court passed earlier. The petitioner was sent a bill for electricity charges by the respondents. As it was not paid, recovery proceedings were initiated against him and citation was issued. Instead of making the payment, he filed a Writ Petition No. 4558 of 2002, wherein this Court vide order dated 30. 1. 2002 considered it proper that an opportunity be given to the petitioner for making representation and, therefore, one months time was given to the respondent-authorities to consider his representation. The said representation for adjusting his bills for the work done by him in the Elections for the State Assembly and Parliament was rejected.

( 2 ) BEING aggrieved petitioner again filed Writ Petition No. 47654 of 2002, which was disposed of vide order dated 11. 11. 2002 observing as under : "in our opinion, no ground has been made out to quash the citation and the prayer made in that behalf is refused. Sri Arun Tandon has submitted that some time may be granted to the petitioner to enable him to deposit the amount. Sri Vinod Misra has, however, submitted that the petitioner must show his bonafides by depositing one-fourth of the amount within a week. If he does so, sometime may be given to him to deposit the balance amount. Taking into consideration the specific feature of this case, as per the averments made in para 28 of the writ petition, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the proceedings for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue shall remain suspended provided the petitioner deposits one-fourth of the amount due by 18. 11. 2002 and the entire balance amount by 18. 12. 2002. In case of default in depositing the amount as indicated above, the stay order shall stand automatically vacated and it will be open to the respondents to recover the entire amount in accordance with law. "

( 3 ) THE present writ petition has been filed to quash the citation on the basis of which recovery is being made, i. e. , the same subject matter which has already been adjudicated upon by this Court and rejected on merit. However, on sympathetic consideration certain observations had been made in favour of the petitioner which he did not comply with at all. Such a petition cannot be held to be maintainable being barred by res judicata/constructive res judicata and other principles based on public policy enshrined in various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 4 ) THE issue of filing successive writ petition has been considered by the Honble Supreme Court time and again and held that even if the earlier writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn, public policy which is reflected in the principle enshrined in Order XXIII Rule 1, C. P. C. , mandates that successive writ petition be not entertained for the same relief. (Vide Sarguja transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1987 SC 88 ; Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Development Authority, 1994 (6) SCC 97 and Khacher Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 1995 (1) AWC 599 ; AIR 1995 All 332 ).

( 5 ) EVEN if a party does not pray for the relief in the earlier writ petition, which he ought to have claimed in the earlier petition, he cannot file a successive writ petition claiming that relief, as it would be barred by the principle of constructive res judicata enshrined in Explanation IV to section 11 and Order II Rule 2, C. P. C. as has been explained, in unambiguous and crystal clear language by the Honble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T. P. Kumaran, 1996 (10) SCC 561 ; Union of India and Ors. v. Punni Lal 1996 (11) SCC 112 and D. Gudasji and Co. v. State of Mysore, AIR 1975 SC 813.

( 6 ) SIMILAR view has been reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya vidyalaya Samiti, 1997 (2) AWC 673 (SC) : (1997) 2 SCC 5