AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.—M/s. Malwa Bus Service (P) Ltd. have through this writ petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, having pryed for quashing notification No. S.R.O. 11 dated 1st of January, 1975 issued u/s 60 of the Contoments Act, 1924 imposing a toll tax on loaded buses and trucks at the rate of Rs. 2/- per vehicle per trip on entering the limits of the contonment area. The petitioner had filed C.W.P. No. 1152 of 1975, challenging this very S.R.O. No. 11 dated 1st of January, 1975, and the imposition of toll tax by the respondent Contonment Board on slightly different grounds. However, the cause of action, admittedly, is the same in both the writ petitions.
Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has raised a preliminary objection that provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC apply to the writ proceedings Since the previous writ petition was got dismissed at withdrawn without permission to file another writ petition, the present writ petition is not competent. In support of this contention, he has relied upon a recent decision of Full Bench of this Court in Teja Singh v. The Union Territory of Chandigarh (1982) 84 P.L.R. 160, wherein it has been held :--
That provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC would apply to the writ proceedings and that a petition which has simply been got dismissed as withdrawn would be a bar to the filing of a second petition on the same facts and in respect of the same cause of action.
The decision in the above said case, undoubtedly covers the present writ petition.
Respectfully following the Full Bench decision, I dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs.