TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their sins. Ironically, that bridge built across that river was used by the petitioner as a means to amass wealth dishonestly. Unfortunately, such unwholesome conduct was facilitated on account of certain orders passed by the Allahabad High Court, Petitioner, who flourished in the aforesaid wealth having been insulated with the court orders against any outside interference for a long time, could not continue preening in such opulence as he was caught in the meanwhile. He is now being asked to return the ill-gotten wealth. Strategy of subterfuge played by him even thereafter did not work for long and he is now facing stringent measures for recovery of the booty. Initially petitioner was allowed to collect the toll at specified rates fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by an order dated 16.3.1994 while disposing of two SLPs. This Court then observed thus: It need be recorded that in the matter of realisation of public revenue, courts have been and should remain reluctant to stay recovery unless an exceptional case is made out. No such exceptional case is made out here. The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside leaving it open to the State of take such effective steps as are necessary to recover public revenues as due. The High Court shall now proceed with the main matter and dispose it of in accordance with law. Undaunted by the above order passed by this Court the petitioner filed a new writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad and a Division Bench (Dubey and A.P. Singh, JJ) passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as they think appropriate to recover monies due to it from the respondent. We are constrained to pass these unusual and exceptional order because we felt acutely distressed by several similar orders passed by the High Court in matters relating to collection of toll fees on bridges in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Petitioner who was aware of the said order of the High Court adopted his next strategy by reporting to the High Court that he was not pressing writ Petition No. 32974/91. A Division Bench of the High Court (Katju and Chauhan, JJ) then felt the need to be circumspect at the seemingly innocuous submission made by the petitioner. When a scrutiny was made, learned judges came across the directions contained in the order p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Hon ble High Court and information be conveyed. Petitioner thereafter filed a new petition in the High Court of Allahabad (Writ Petition No. 19593/96) challenging the validity of the order passed by the Commissioner of Allahabad Division. Learned Judges directed the petitioner to pay 50% of the amount mentioned in the Commissioner s order forthwith and to furnish security for the balance amount. The said writ petition is still pending. In the meanwhile, petitioner challenged the order of Allahabad High Court dated 3.5.1996 by filing SLP(c) No. 12673 of 1996 in this court. But for reasons better known to the petitioner he withdrew the SLP on 9.7.1996. Thereafter, he filed an application before High Court for clarificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may award and shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject matter or such part of the claim. The aforesaid ban for filing a fresh suit is based on public policy. This Court has made the said rule of public policy applicable to jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution (Sarguja Iransport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior, 1987 1 SCC 5). The reasoning for adopting it in writ jurisdiction is that very often it happens, when the petitioner or his counsel finds that the court is not likely to pass an order admitting the writ petition after it is heard for some time, that a request is made by the petitioner or his counsel to permit him to withdraw it without seeking permission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stitution should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without such permission. Of course their Lordships added that the above rule is not applicable to writ petitions involving personal liberty since such a case stands on a different footing altogether. We have no doubt that the above rule of public policy, for the very same reasoning, should apply to special leave petitions filed under Art.136 of the Constitution also. Even otherwise, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 3.5.1998 does not warrant interference on merits as the learned judges of the High Court have taken into account all the relevant f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
