Uma Nath Singh and Ritu Raj Awasthi, JJ.—

We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of review petition.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that all other employees of the Organization of the petitioner were accommodated in Agriculture Department but the case of, the petitioner was not taken up for consideration, and finally his services were dispensed with in 1993. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition in 1993, wherein no interim order was passed. Therefore, he filed an application for withdrawal of the petition on 11.5.1993. During the pendency of application, barely after two days, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition on 13.5.1993. It appears that the earlier writ petition remained pending and was withdrawn later after 11 years in 2004, but during its pendency, the petitioner obtained an interim order in the second writ petition soon after its filing in 1993, on the first date of hearing without disclosing the factum of pendency. The second writ petition with interim relief came up for final hearing before a learned single Judge in 2011 and it was allowed.

3. The State filed an special appeal wherein the impugned order dated 30th January, 2012, was passed by a Co-ordinate Division Bench in which one of us (Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.) was a member, with following observations which are reproduced as under :

"..........In the instant case, admittedly, the same order of termination dated 16th March, 1993 was the subject-matter of challenge in the earlier writ petition bearing No. 2208 (S/S) of 1993 and therefore, the second writ petition was not maintainable ; simply because the first writ petition was got dismissed as withdrawn, the second writ petition was not maintainable. That being so, the writ petition itself was not maintainable, thus, the order passed by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained, which hereby set aside. The writ petition is dismissed."

4. Learned counsel for review-petitioner submitted that it was a bona fide mistake on the part of petitioner that he filed two writ petitions. He filed the second one, namely, 3770 (S/S) of 1993 on 13.5.1993, after filing of application for withdrawal of the first one namely. Writ Petition No. 2208 (S/S) of 1993 on 11.5.1993. Learned counsel has also referred to two judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in support of his contentions.

5. In the first judgment which is of Arunima Baruah v. Union of India and others. (2007) 6 SCC 120 : 2007 (6) AWC 6281 (SC), learned counsel, in particular, placed reliance on paragraphs 18 and 22 to argue that a litigant can, though not ordinarily, pursue two parallel remedies and it would not create a bar of res judicata. Paragraphs 18 and 22 of the judgment, for convenience, are reproduced as under :

"18. There is another doctrine which cannot also be lost sight of. The court would not ordinarily permit a party to pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same subject-matter. (See Jai Singh v. Union of India). But, where one proceeding has been terminated without determination of this lis can it be said that the disputant shall be without a remedy?

19.

20.

21.

22. In this case, however, suppression of filing of the suit is no longer a material fact. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court may be correct that, in a case of this nature, the Court's jurisdiction may not be invoked but that would not mean that another writ petition would not lie. When another writ petition is filed disclosing all the facts, the appellant would be approaching the writ court with a pair of clean hands, and the Court at that point of time will be entitled to determine the case on merits having regard to the human right of the appellant to access to justice, and keeping in view the fact that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution of India."

6. As regards the second Judgment cited by learned counsel for review petitioner which is in Mahendra and others, v. State of Uttaranchal and anot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document