The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of constructive res judicata, which bars the re-opening of issues already adjudicated upon by a coordinate Bench of the Court.

These two writ petitions have been filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation challenging the orders passed by the State Government dated 2.7.2010, 17.9.2010, Order No.2929(2)S.C./18-2-2010-51/10 dated 4.01.2011, Order No.2929(3)S.C./18-2-2010-51/10 dated 4.01.2011, Order No.2929(4)S.C./18-2-2010-51/10 dated 4.01.2011 and the orders passed by the Collector Stamp/Additional Collector (F/R) of different districts with a further prayer for mandamus commanding the opposite party no.1 to take decision on the report submitted by the Uttar Pradesh Lok Ayukt and also to revaluate the 21 sugar mills, which have been sold, afresh by an independent agency for the purpose of proceeding with disinvestment.

2. The above orders have been passed as a consequence of the two writ petitions filed at Allahabad numbering Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.39850 of 2009, Chini Mill Karmchari Sangh vs. State of U.P. and others and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.47934 of 2008, Rajiv Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 1.4.2010. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.39850 of 2009 was filed on behalf of Chini Mill Karmchari Sangh, Mohiuddinpur Unit through its President alleging therein that they were going to be affected directly and adversely by privatization policy of the State as the same is prejudicial to the interest of the members of the petitioner union and is a gross infraction of existing and prevalent statutes as well as the Constitution of India. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.47934 of 2008, Rajiv Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others, was filed with a prayer for quashing the request for proposal for strategic sale of entire equity of the Government of Uttar Pradesh in Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Limited (for short 'Corporation') as issued on 8.9.2008. Further prayer was made for quashing the Government Order dated 4.6.2007, by means of which the State of U.P. has taken decision for privatisation/sale of units of the Corporation. In the aforesaid writ petitions, an order was passed on 30.9.2008, whereby a direction was given that no third party right shall be created till the next date of listing. During the course of hearing in the said writ petitions, it was brought to the notice of the Court that an ordinance dated 29.9.2008 has been issued, on which the petitioner was directed to challenge the said ordinance, namely, U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2008 promulgated on 29.9.2008. The said ordinance was subsequently replaced by U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 2009. The petitioner was also directed to amend the writ petition by adding the prayer for declaring the Act of 2009 as ultra vires. After the enforcement of the Amendment Act, 2009 an expression-cum-request for publication was issued by the State of U.P. on 29.6.2009 for sale/privatisation of 11 operating units of the Corporation. Both the writ petitions were heard and finally a coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 1.4.2010 came to the conclusion that Section 3-C and Section 3-D of the Amendment Act, 2009 to the extent it provides "closure of the scheduled undertakings or sugar mills of the Corporation and its subsidiaries or in relation to the Corporation itself" was struck down as lack of legislative competence and all consequential actions to the above extent shall automatically fall to the ground. The other provisions of the Amendment Act, 2009 and the actions taken therein were held to be intra-vires. In Writ Petition No.47934 of 2008, Rajiv Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P., an application for amendment was filed by the petitioner thereby seeking to amend the memo of writ petition extensively by adding as many as fourteen new paragraphs and fourteen new grounds and a prayer for quashing the Request of Proposal for slump sale of 11 operating Sugar Mills dated 29.6.2009 which was allowed by this Court. The request for proposal was challenged on the ground that valuation of the S