IDAN PURI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal by Idan Puri who was and Skilled Fitter in the Northern Railway Workshop, Jodhpur, is directed against an order of P.N. Shanghai, J. dated 3 -4 -1972 dismissing his writ petition for quashing the order of his dismissal dated 27 -2 -1971.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge declined to invoke his discretionary powers under Article 226 of. the Constitution on the ground that an earlier writ petition filed by the appellant for a relief similar to that claimed in the present writ petition, had been dismissed by this Court summarily, on the ground that while it was permissible for him to have filed a revision -application under Rule 24(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 he had not availed of that remedy though he was specifically informed by letter, Ex. 3, dated 24 -6 -1971. As that statutory remedy was held to be equally efficacious and convenient the writ petition was dismissed. thereafter, the appellant filed a revision but it appears from letter dated 27 -11 -1971 that the revision had been dismissed. The question before the learned Single Judge, therefore, was whether the second be petition after the dismissal of the first should be entertained. Following the decision of Lord Denman C.J., in The Queen v. Manchester and Leeds Railway Co. English Reports Vol. CXII, 859, the learned Single Judge was of the view that as regards writ other than habeas corpus, a second petition will not lie. He distinguished the decision of their Lordships in Daryao and Ors. v. State of Utter Pradesh and Ors. : [1962]1SCR574 , as the question involved there was different, viz. whether a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was barred by the principle of res judicata when an earlier petition ruder Article 226 had been distressed in limine. The learned Single Judge accordingly dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioner the remedy of a suit, if so advised.

(3.) THE practice and procedure of this Court is ordinarily governed by the Rules framed by the Court under Article 225 of the Constitution. In our judgment, the present writ petition was clearly barred by Rule 382 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 which runs as follows: 382. Where an application has been rejected, it shall not be competent for the applicant to make a second application on the same facts. That was the view taken in Radha Krishna and Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 135 of 1973, decided on 16 -9 -1976. There is no reason for us to take a different view now.