BEULA KHATUN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition come up for motion hearing on 4.9.2006 and on perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, this Court remembered filing of another writ petition on the same set of facts. Accordingly, learned Counsel for the petitioner on being asked as to whether another writ petition was filed on the same cause of action, admitted of having done so. However, he could not provide the particulars of the writ petition and accordingly the matter was adjourned to 6.9.2006 enabling him to furnish the particulars.

(2.) ON 6.9.2006, learned Counsel for the petitioner furnished the particulars of the earlier writ petition being WP(C) No. 6403/2004, disposed of on 7.9.2004. With such information, the matter was ordered to be listed alongwith the said writ petition and this is how, the matter is before this Court for motion hearing alongwith the said writ petition.

(3.) THE father of the deceased filed the aforesaid writ petition and the mother of the deceased has filed the present writ petition and the counsel arguing the case on both the occasions is one and the same. Thus, it cannot be said that the learned Counsel was unaware of the earlier writ petition. However, being confronted with the fact of dismissal of the earlier writ petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to justify filing of the present writ petition on ground of procuring some more materials. Whether any new materials have come to light or not having regard to the nature of the order passed towards dismissal of the earlier writ petition, there is no scope for filing another writ petition on the same cause of action and with the same prayer. The prayer made in the earlier writ petition was for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000 on account of death of the son of the petitioner. In this writ petition also, the mother of the deceased, with the enhancement of the compensation amount (Rs. 17,76,000 as against earlier Rs. 10,00,000), has made the same very prayer.