IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 11452 of 2025 Manas Kumar Nayak and others …. Petitioners Mr. B.P. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Collector, Puri and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Debasish Tripathy, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK Order No. ORDER 25.07.2025 03. 1. Raising the identical issue pertaining to the establishment and construction of an Anganwadi Center at the existing site instead of the site within the territorial limits of the village in which the petitioners are the inhabitants, the instant writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been filed. 2. An earlier writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) being W.P.(C) No.9298 of 2025 was filed. The said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn on 5th April, 2025 as the petitioners intended to ventilate their grievance before the appropriate forum/authority. The order disposing of the said writ petition is reproduced as under: "1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the writ application with further liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances. 3. Permission is granted with liberty as aforesaid." 3. The present writ petition filed claiming the self-same reliefs with an additional prayer of a mandamus to be issued upon the Block Development Officer (BDO), Satyabadi, opposite party No.2 herein from desisting to construct the Anganwadi Center over a Rakhita land and also to consider the grievance petition being Annexure-3 hereto. 4. We have an occasion to peruse Annexure-3 appended to the writ petition which is of dated 21st March, 2025. The order as quoted hereinabove indicates that the prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition was accepted and/or acceded to as the petitioners intended to ventilate their grievance before the appropriate forum. Annexure-3 to the instant writ petition does not reveal that pursuant to such liberty granted by this Court in the earlier writ petition, any attempt is made to ventilate such grievance as Annexure-3 was of dated 21st March, 2025, which was in existence on the date when the said order was passed by this Court. Page 3 of 3 5. A litigant should not be encouraged to approach the Court for the self-same reliefs after having unsuccessful in an earlier litigation. The moment a conscious decision was taken to withdraw the earlier writ petition with an intent to approach the appropriate forum flagging self-same issue, in absence of any further approach in terms of such liberty having granted, the Court should not reopen the issue in a subsequent litigation. The petitioners have an opportunity to seek relief with regard to the consideration of their representation filed at least before the date of an order passed in the earlier litigation and having not prayed such relief even if necessitated by a subsequent event, it forecloses the right to re- agitate the same in a subsequent litigation in view of explanation (iv) to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 6. We thus do not find any merit in the instant writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.R. Pathak) Judge S. Behera Designation: Senior Stenographer