Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghav Chandak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2015
1
W.P. No.10355/2015
29.10.2015
Shri P.P. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Heard counsel for the parties on admission.
This is second round of writ petition filed by the petitioner for the same relief, albeit, differently couched.
In the previous round of writ petition bearing W.P. No.8043/2015 the challenge was to para 2 of the Letter of Intent dated 25.05.2015. The Division Bench of this Court considered the said grievance and observed that remedy was available to the petitioner, ascribable to clause 2.25 of the NIT. The petitioner has allowed that decision of the Division Bench dated 08.06.2015 in W.P. No.8043/2015 to become final.
Notably, no leave was sought by the petitioner from the Court to file fresh petition to challenge any other clause of the selfsame Letter of Intent or NIT. Nevertheless, the petitioner has once again approached this Court by way of present writ petition. On this occasion, the petitioner amongst others challenges clause 2 of Letter of Intent and clause 2.21 of the NIT and has 2 asked for further relief on the basis of that challenge.
As aforesaid, in absence of any leave granted to by Court, and sought by the petitioner to pursue these reliefs, it is not open for this Court to entertain successive petition filed by the petitioner on the same subject matter. The argument of petitioner, however, proceeds that petitioner cannot resort to remedy of arbitration as the document in which clause 2.25 has been incorporated cannot be considered as arbitration agreement. This argument was available to the petitioner even on the earlier round of writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said contention was pressed into service but did not find favour with the Court. In that case, the remedy is not to come back to this Court by way of second writ petition for similar relief claimed on the earlier occasion and concerning the same cause of action, being arising out of the selfsame Letter of Intent and NIT.
As a result, we decline to entertain this second writ petition, being not maintainable.
The petitioner is free to take recourse to such other remedy as may be permissible in law but cannot be allowed to resort to successive writ petitions for the same 3 relief which has already been considered and more particularly the reliefs which the petitioner could have asked in the earlier round of writ petition, in absence of grant of leave by the Court in that behalf.
Petition disposed of accordingly.
(A. M. Khanwilkar) (Sanjay Yadav)
Chief Justice Judge
psm