# Smt. Pushpa Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 644
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-31
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 563 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-pushpa-srivastava-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48821
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Termination - Grant-inaid (Technical or Industrial Institutions)
Rules, 1949 - Grant-in-aid Rules, 1947 -
Rules 7 of Appendix-4 - The impugned
termination
order
has
been
passed
without
giving
any
notice,
providing
opportunity of hearing and without proper
inquiry, hence the same is arbitrary,
unjust and against the principles of
natural justice. (Para 21)

Perusal of the records goes to show that
termination
order
has
been
passed
without any show cause notice, proper
inquiry
and
without
furnishing
the
documents,
relying
on
which
the
impugned order has been passed. The
termination order has been passed relying on
such documents, which have not been served
upon the petitioner and also on the ex-parte
inquiry report submitted by three members
Committee which was constituted for some
other purpose rather than to enquire on the
complaint
of
some
person
w.r.t.
forged
appointment letter, when the petitioner had
already submitted a reply dated 09.07.2021 in
respect of selection of Clerk in the Institution.
(Para 20)

B. Nothing has been brought on record to
show that there was any reason for
entertaining a complaint which was made
by some unknown persons, not related to
the petitioner or to the Institution, as to
whether it was accompanied by any
affidavit or not, and, so much so, as to
what was the basis of such a complaint.
This Court keeps in mind the peculiar case of
petitioner who has worked from 1997 till
passing of impugned order without there being
any complaint against her. She has been made
to suffer only when she has raised her voice
against the Management. The respondents are
directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith on
the post of Instructor (on which she was
working prior to passing of termination order)
(as writ challenging reversion order is still
pending). (Para 21, 22)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Present petition assails termination order
dated 03.12.2021, passed by Manager,
Committee
of
Management
of
Silai,
Kadhai, Bunai Prkshishan Evam Utpadan
Kendra.

## Text

644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Smt. Madhnri Verma and Ors., is fully
applicable in the present case. In the
aforesaid judgment the Division Bench held
special appeal not maintainable in a case,
which arose out of writ petition, filed
against the order of Election Tribunal. In
the aforesaid case Prescribed Authority
exercising power under Section 12-C of
U.P.
Panchayat
Raj
Act
passed
a
recounting order, The Division Bench
upheld the objection or maintainability of
the special appeal. It was laid down in
Paragraph 6 of the judgment:

"6. It is clear from the aforesaid
Rule that no special appeal is maintainable
in the cases where the controversy does not
originate before the High Court. The Rule
admittedly is based on a logic that the
Prescribed Authority or the Revisional
Authority which act as Tribunal/Court
having already appreciated the matter from
judicial angle and in order to get finality
the decision of the Single Judge should be
taken as final and no appeal should further
be maintainable. This Court has taken
similar view in Sita Ram Lal v. D.I.O.S.,
Azamgarh and Ors., wherein the main
object of Chapter VIII, Rule 5 has been
duly discussed."

62. In view of the foregoing
discussions, it is clear that special appeal
arising out of writ petition filed against the
order passed by Election Tribunal are also
barred by Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules
of the Court. Consequently Special Appeal
Nos. 1118 of 2002 and 532 of 2002 are
liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

8. It has been clearly held in
paragraph 62 that special appeals arising
out of writ petition filed against the order
passed by a Election Tribunal under
Section 12-C are barred by Chapter VIII,
Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court.

9. The Sub Divisional Magistrate,
while passing order dated 13.05.2022 has
clearly mentioned that the order is being
passed by him, acting as prescribed
authority under the Act. Under Section 12C of the Act, the election petition lies
before such authority as may be prescribed.
It is not the case of the appellant that Sub
Divisional Magistrate is not the authority
prescribed to deal with a petition under
Section 12-C. The contention that the
election petition was not presented in the
manner prescribed could be considered,
had the appeal been maintainable. As this
appeal is not maintainable, we cannot
arrogate to ourselves the power to dwell on
the issue. Likewise, provision relating to
revision before District Judge, will not
detract from the legal position that the
proceedings originate from an order of
Election Tribunal under U.P. Act.

10. We, accordingly, uphold the
preliminary objection and dismiss the
special appeal as not maintainable.
----------
(2022)07ILR A644
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 563 of 2022

Smt. Pushpa Srivastava ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
7 All. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
645
Sri Kripa Shankar Pandey, Sri Sunil Kumar
Srivastava, Sri Radha Kant Ojha (Senior
Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi

A. Service Law - Termination - Grant-inaid (Technical or Industrial Institutions)
Rules, 1949 - Grant-in-aid Rules, 1947 -
Rules 7 of Appendix-4 - The impugned
termination
order
has
been
passed
without
giving
any
notice,
providing
opportunity of hearing and without proper
inquiry, hence the same is arbitrary,
unjust and against the principles of
natural justice. (Para 21)

Perusal of the records goes to show that
termination
order
has
been
passed
without any show cause notice, proper
inquiry
and
without
furnishing
the
documents,
relying
on
which
the
impugned order has been passed. The
termination order has been passed relying on
such documents, which have not been served
upon the petitioner and also on the ex-parte
inquiry report submitted by three members
Committee which was constituted for some
other purpose rather than to enquire on the
complaint
of
some
person
w.r.t.
forged
appointment letter, when the petitioner had
already submitted a reply dated 09.07.2021 in
respect of selection of Clerk in the Institution.
(Para 20)

B. Nothing has been brought on record to
show that there was any reason for
entertaining a complaint which was made
by some unknown persons, not related to
the petitioner or to the Institution, as to
whether it was accompanied by any
affidavit or not, and, so much so, as to
what was the basis of such a complaint.
This Court keeps in mind the peculiar case of
petitioner who has worked from 1997 till
passing of impugned order without there being
any complaint against her. She has been made
to suffer only when she has raised her voice
against the Management. The respondents are
directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith on
the post of Instructor (on which she was
working prior to passing of termination order)
(as writ challenging reversion order is still
pending). (Para 21, 22)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Present petition assails termination order
dated 03.12.2021, passed by Manager,
Committee
of
Management
of
Silai,
Kadhai, Bunai Prkshishan Evam Utpadan
Kendra.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Radha Kant Ojha,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Mr. Santosh Kmar
Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent
nos. 5 & 6 and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh
Baghel, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed
with the following prayer:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing
the
order
dated
impugned
termination
order
dated
03.12.2021
(Annexure no.14 to the writ petition)
passed by respondent Manager, Committee
of Management of Silai, Kadhai, Bunai
Prkshishan Evam Utpadan Kendra.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding and directing the respondents
not to interfere in the peaceful functioning
of petitioner as Principal in the institution
and pay her arrears of salary as well as
regular salary and continue the same
month to month.

(iii) Issue any other suitable writ,
order or direction in favour of the
646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the present facts and
circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of the petition
in favour of the petitioner."

3. The Nehru Bal Mandal is a
registered society which runs a number of
institutions recognized by the Board of
Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh, as well as
Social Welfare Department. The Silai,
Kadhai, Bunai Prakshikshan Evam Utpadan
Kendra, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to
as Institution) is run by the aforesaid
Society since 1974 after being recognized
by the Social Welfare Department. The
aforesaid institution is governed under the
provisions of grant-in-aid (Technical or
Industrial Institutions) Rules, 1949 (in short
Rules, 1949). As per the aforesaid rules, the
Committee of Management is empowered
to run the institution, appoint the staff of
the institution, pay the salary of the staff of
the institution. This rule is however silent
about the governance of un-aided schools.

4. The petitioner was appointed as
Instructor for one year probation period in
the
Institution
on
30.06.1997,
after
following the proper procedure as provided
under law, on account of resignation being
tendered by one Instructor, namely, Usha
Mishra. The petitioner joined her duty in
the Institution on 01.07.1997 and continued
up to 25.09.2013. She was confirmed and
promoted as Senior Instructor, being Senior
most Instructor, she was handed over
charge
of
officiating
Principal
on
26.09.2013 as the services of the then
Principal
of
the
Institution,
namely,
Chanchal Sharma were terminated by the
Committee
of
Management.
The
petitioner's services were regularized as
Principal by the then Committee of
Management
of
the
Institution
on
17.11.2016 on the basis of long and
satisfactory service.

5. The Institution where the petitioner
was working as Principal was not in grantin-aid
list,
therefore,
the
respondent
Committee
of
Management
was
continuously approaching the Government
for extension and Government grants,
ensuingly the State Government took the
Institution in grant-in-aid list by order
dated 29.12.2017, and sanctioned 7 post.
The
Director,
Social
Welfare,
U.P.,
Lucknow, also agreed to proceed for
providing revised salary of the employees
of
the
Institution
by
order
dated
12.02.2019, accordingly he asked the
Management as well as District Social
Welfare Officer, Prayagraj to provide the
statement of working employees in the
Institution. In furtherance of the above, the
District Social Welfare Officer, Prayagraj
asked the management to produce the
approved list of employees. Subsequently,
the
then
management
provided
the
approved
list
of
employees
of
the
Institution on 14.02.2019, which was inturn
approved by the District Social Welfare
Officer, Prayagraj and submitted for its
approval to the Director, Social Welfare
Department on 20.02.2019. The name of
the petitioner finds place in the list which
establishes that the petitioner was working
as regular Principal of the Institution and
receiving salary from the Government
exchequer since 29.12.2017 till date. The
petitioner has worked up to best of her
abilities
and
capability,
having
unblemished
record,
there
being
no
complaint whatsoever against her by
anyone.

6. It appears that the resignation as
tendered by one Anita Mishra, Clerk of the
7 All. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
647
Institution before the Management on
27.07.2019 has not been approved by
respondent no.2 and the petitioner did not
have any such information in this regard.
Without clarifying the real situation with
respect to vacancy of clerk the Committee
of Management advertised the vacancy of
clerk in the aforesaid Institution on
23.09.2020 and held the interview for the
same on 24.11.2020. The petitioner being
head of the panel participated in the
selection
proceedings
in
which
the
candidates for the post of clerk were
interviewed. As the Government order
dated
05.12.2018
provides
for
three
members in the Selection Committee, an
objection was raised by the petitioner as the
panel consisted of four members but the
same was ignored by representative of the
Management
namely
Pramod
Shukla.
Petitioner being employee of the Institution
did not vehemently oppose the panel and
proeeded accordingly, therefore, interview
was held, in which one Neelam Singh was
selected as Assistant Clerk. Neelam Singh
joined the Institution but the State authority
has not approved the appointment dated
16.02.2021 till date.

7. The entire exercise as well as the
appointment letter dated 16.02.2021 was
challenged
by
one
candidate,
who
participated in the interview by means of
filing Writ Petition No. 625321 of 2021,
the Hon'ble Court was pleased to call for
records of the said selection from the
Management and the matter is still pending
for consideration. Another Writ Petition
being Writ No.16121 of 2021 was filed by
one Anita Mishra which is also pending
before this Hon'ble Court. In one of the
petitions, the petitioner therein had taken a
ground of number of irregularities in the
selection so held as well as with respect to
members of the Selection Committee and
consideration of the videography of the
interview. The respondent Committee of
Management by letter dated 26.06.2021
asked the petitioner (present writ petition)
to explain the situation of the interview as
one Uttam Anand who had filed the
petition
had
narrated
about
some
videography being conducted and asked her
to produce the same before them, if there
was any such videography. The petitioner
submitted a detailed reply on 29.06.2021
but without considering the same, the
petitioner was asked to clarify the situation
of the interview with respect to members of
the Selection Committee. The petitioner
submitted explanation dated 09.07.2021
which was repetition of the reply earlier
submitted.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the Committee of Management
was annoyed by the petitioner as she was
not cooperating in the illegal exercise of
selection of Neelam Singh as Assistant
Clerk, therefore, the petitioner was being
harassed by sending number of notices. In
order to harass the petitioner, an Inquiry
Committee was constituted by the Manager
of the Institution on 09.08.2021 and 8
employees including 2 of the Institution
were asked to appear before the Inquiry
Committee on 10.08.2021. The information
to appear before the inquiry committee was
given by means of letter dated 09.08.2021
which does not mention about forged
signatures of Manager on petitioner's
appointment letter. When the petitioner
appeared before the Committee as informed
verbally, along with the documents as
required, no members of the inquiry
committee was present to continue the
inquiry which was initiated on 09.08.2021,
and an information was given that the
inquiry has been completed and an ex-parte
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry
Officer.

9.
 Surprisingly, on 12.08.2021
without any notice, opportunity of hearing
or the ex-parte report being given to the
petitioner, relying upon the report of the
three members Committee headed by Dr.
Salik Ram Dwivedi. Smt. Neetu Singh,
Senior Most Instructor was given the
charge to perform the duties of Principal of
the Institution. The letter dated 12.08.2021
did not contain the name of the petitioner
but her name was later added, showing her
to be instructor and the same was sent to
the petitioner through registered post along
with letter of attestation of signature of
Smt. Neetu Singh who was given the
charge of Principal of the Institution. The
aforesaid order dated 12.08.2021 vide
which Smt. Neetu Singh was appointed to
discharge the function of Principal in the
Institution as well as the order reverting the
petitioner on the post of Instructor was
challenged by means of filing Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No.17363 of 2021 which is
still pending.

10. In the aforesaid matter, notices
have been issued to Smt. Neetu Singh who
was given the charge of performing the
work of Principal in the Institution. When
the Committee of Management came to
know about filing of the writ petition, the
petitioner was placed under suspension by
order dated 25.11.2021. The suspension
order was accompanied by charge sheet,
mentioning
23
charges
against
the
petitioner without there being any evidence
with regard to the allegations made against
the petitioner. The entire exercise has been
done being, annoyed by the petitioner, as
she
had
opposed
the
procedure
of
appointment of clerk namely, Neelam
Singh who was relative of one of the
members of the Management. After being
served with the suspension order along
with copy of the charge sheet, the petitioner
requested for the documentary evidence in
order to submit a reply but surprisingly
within a week termination order has been
passed on 03.12.2021 without giving any
notice, opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the termination order has been
passed in arbitrary manner as the same has
been passed just after six days of passing of
the suspension order wherein along with
the suspension order a charge sheet was
given to the petitioner, without any show
cause notice or proper inquiry. Though, the
termination order speaks about some
reports dated 11.11.2021 as well as
24.11.2021 and a resolution of the
Committee
of
Management
dated
01.12.2021, the aforesaid documents were
not served upon the petitioner prior to
passing the impugned order, therefore, the
same cannot be sustained in the eyes of
law. The impugned termination order is in
violation of Office/Government order dated
05.12.2018 which provides that termination
order cannot be passed without taking
permission/approval of Director of Social
Welfare Department as well as in violation
of provision of Rules 7 of Appendix-4 of
grant-in-aid Rules 1947, therefore, the
same is illegal.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the termination order speaks
about the report of handwriting expert
according to which signature of Late.
Keshav Dutt Mishra, the then Manager
found on the appointment letter dated
30.06.1997 did not match with the
signatures of Late. K.D. Mishra made on
other documents. Such a procedure adopted
7 All. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
649
by the Management is not permissible in
the eyes of law, therefore, the termination
order is based upon the report, which
cannot be relied upon. The conduct of the
Committee of Management, wherein on the
basis of some complaints the signatures of
the
then
Manager
placed
on
the
appointment letter of the petitioner were
sent to the Forensic Lab before the
handwriting expert is not justified as the
original appointment letter was missing and
Mr. K.D. Mishra expired by that time,
therefore, the procedure seems to be
unjustified and no reliance can be placed
upon such report.

13. On one hand when the petitioner
who is working in the Institution since
30.06.1997 was promoted from the post of
Instructor to Principal, there was no
occasion of conducting any inquiry after so
many years with respect to the appointment
letter on the basis of false and baseless
complaints and proceed to terminate the
petitioner relying upon some ex-parte
report vide which the signature of the then
Manager on the appointment letter was
verified by the handwriting expert. The
impugned termination order has no legs to
stand as the charge sheet as furnished to the
petitioner along with the suspension order
is based on no evidence and if any the same
has not been furnished to the petitioner to
enable her to submit its reply. Thus, the
termination order is arbitrary, unjustified,
illegal and in violation of principles of
natural justice, hence, cannot be sustained
in the eyes of law.

14. Learned Standing Counsel could
not dispute the aforesaid fact that the
termination order has been passed without
any notice or inquiry and relying upon the
ex-parte
report.
Mr.
Santosh
Kumar
Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent
nos.5 and 6 submits that a complaint was
made by one Prabhat Ranjan with respect
to appointment letter of the petitioner
obtained by forging signatures of the then
Manager Mr. K.D. Mishra, on which an
inquiry was conducted.

15. In one part of the inquiry, the
signatures of Late. K.D. Mishra as on the
photo copy of the petitioner's appointment
letter (as the original records were not
available) was sent for verification before
the handwriting expert wherein it was
found that there is difference in signatures
of Late. K.D. Mishra on the appointment
letter as compared to that in the other
documents.

16. In another set of inquiry, three
members
Committee
was
constituted,
headed by Dr. Salik Ram Dwivedi and the
said committee asked for appointment letter
dated
30.06.1997
but
the
original
appointment letter was not submitted by the
petitioner which shows her conduct and
also approves the allegations made in the
complaint.

17. Learned counsel for Committee of
Management has also denied the promotion
of the petitioner on the post of Senior
Instructor and Principal as there is no
resolution in that regard. He further submits
that inquiry report has been sent before the
Director
Social
Welfare
department,
waiting for his directions in this regard. An
FIR has also been lodged against the
petitioner with respect to the forgery which
has been committed by her in obtaining
fake and fabricated appointment letter. He
further submits that two notices dated
23.10.2021 and 27.10.2021 have been
given to the petitioner to submit her reply
on the aspect, but neither the original
documents nor
any
reply
has
been
submitted in this regard, therefore, there is
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no illegality in the order impugned and no
interference is required in such case where
the petitioner has obtained appointment
letter by committing fraud.

18. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records.

19. Perusal of the records goes to
show that termination order has been
passed without any show cause notice,
proper inquiry and without furnishing the
documents, relying on which the impugned
order has been passed. It would not be out
of place to mention that as per the records,
the letter dated 09.07.2021 goes to show
that some inquiry with respect to selection
for the post of Clerk in which one Neelam
Singh was appointed, was being conducted
and in furtherance of the same, the letter
dated 09.08.2021 was also given to 8
employees including the petitioner of the
present institution, were asked to appear
before the Inquiry Committee with respect
to some applications placed by employees
of the Institutions. Nothing has been
brought on record to show that there was
any reason for entertaining a complaint
which was made by some unknown
persons, not related to the petitioner or to
the Institution, as to whether it was
accompanied by any affidavit or not, and,
so much so, as to what was the basis of
such a complaint. The inquiry with respect
to the signatures of the then Manager who
had issued the appointment letter way back
in the year 1997 was compared with
photographed/photostat disputed signatures
in other documents could not be taken into
consideration
for
believing
that
the
petitioner had committed some forgery as
the report itself mentioned that the same
was subject to an inspection of original
photographs
of
these
photographed/photostat disputed signatures
placed before the handwriting and finger
expert. The other stand taken by the learned
counsel for the Committee of Management
that signature of the then Manager on
petitioner's appointment letter are forged,
cannot be believed, as on one hand the
petitioner was promoted from time to time
and it is only after the objection raised by
the petitioner with respect to selection of
clerk in the institution being done not in
accordance with law, all the proceedings
have been initiated in the year 2020 and
petitioner has been reverted to post of
Instructor on 12.08.2021.

20. This Court also finds that the
termination order has been passed relying
on such documents, which has not been
served upon the petitioner and also on the
ex-parte inquiry report submitted by three
members Committee which was constituted
for some other purpose rather than to
enquire on the complaint of some person
with respect to forged appointment letter,
when the petitioner had already submitted a
reply dated 09.07.2021 in respect of
selection of Clerk in the Institution.

21. This Court while deciding the
matter also keeps in mind the peculiar case
of petitioner who has worked from 1997 till
passing of impugned order without there
being any complaint against her, who has
been made to suffer only when she has
raised her voice against the Management.
Undoubtedly, the impugned termination
order has been passed without giving any
notice, providing opportunity of hearing
and without proper inquiry, hence the same
is
arbitrary,
unjust
and
against
the
principles of natural justice.

22. In view of the aforesaid, the
termination order dated 03.12.2021 cannot
be sustained in the eyes of law and the
7 All. Gagan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
651
same is hereby set aside. The respondents
are directed to reinstate the petitioner
forthwith on the post of Instructor (on
which she was working prior to passing of
termination order) (as writ challenging
reversion order is still pending).

23. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2022)07ILR A651
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 620 of 2022

Gagan Sharma ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Seemant Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Selection - U.P. Police
Constable and Head Constable Service
Rules, 2015- Appendix-3 of Rule 16(g) -
Explanation IV to Section 11 and Order 2
Rule 2 C.P.C. - No litigant has a right to
unlimited drought on the Court time and
public money in order to get his affairs
settled in the manner he wishes. However,
access to justice should not be misused as
a licence to file misconceived and frivolous
petitions. (Para 18)

Filing
successive
misconceived
and
frivolous
applications
for
clarification,
modification or for seeking a review of the
order interferes with the purity of the
administration of law and salutary and
healthy practice. Such a litigant must be
dealt with a very heavy hand. (Para 20, 21,
22)

It is an admitted position between the parties
that for the same relief as made in the present
writ petition, the petitioner has already fled
Writ-A No. 12672 of 2020 (Gagan Sharma Vs St.
of U.P. & 3 Others), which has been dismissed
by a Writ Court vide judgment and order dated
03.08.2021, however, in the said writ petition,
according to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the grounds taken in the same are
different from those, which have been taken in
the present writ petition. (Para 9)

The issue of filing successive writ petition has
been considered by the Apex Court time and
again, accordingly it has been held that even if
the earlier writ petition has been dismissed as
withdrawn, Public Policy which is reflected in
the principle enshrined in Order 23 rule 1
C.P.C., mandates that successive writ petition
cannot be entertained for the same relief.
(Para 10)

Even if a party does not pray for the relief in
the earlier writ petition, which he ought to
have claimed in the earlier petition, he
cannot file a successive writ petition claiming
that relief, as it would be barred by the
principle
of
constructive
res
judicata
enshrined in Explanation IV to Section 11
and Order 2 rule 2 C.P.C. (Para 12)

It is abundantly clear that even if the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure
are not applicable in writ jurisdiction,
the principle enshrined therein can be
resorted to for the reason that the
principles, on which the Code of Civil
Procedure is based, are founded on
public policy and, therefore, require to
be extended and made applicable in writ
jurisdiction
also
in
the
interest
of
administration of justice. Any relief not
claimed in the earlier writ petition should be
deemed to have been abandoned by the
petitioner to the extent of the cause of action
claimed in the subsequent writ petition and in
order to restrain the person from abusing the
process of the Court, such an order/course
requires not only to be resorted to but to be
enforced. (Para 17)