- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8819 WP No. 32215 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 32215 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. UMRAH DEVELOPERS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.22/1, MILLERS, TANK BUND ROAD, KAVERIAPPA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 052. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. YUSUF SHERIFF. REGISTERED PROPRIETORSHIP. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GAURAV N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K R PURAM - 560 036. 3. SRI. G.S. SHIVA SHANKAR, S/O. G.K.SHIVANANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4859/2, Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8819 WP No. 32215 of 2024 NEW CHURCH STREET, BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 114. 4. MRS. ARATHI ANAND, SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.L.M.CHIDANANDAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. QUASH ORDER DATED 01.08.2023, BEARING NO. VG/JADA/POORVA/HARAJU/CR/22 (1)/08-09, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN. A COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED.01.08.2023, IS ANNEXED HERETO AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has filed a detailed statement of objections, challenging the maintainability of this petition. He relies on the order - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8819 WP No. 32215 of 2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19289/2023 c/w W.P.No.16596/2023. By referring to this order, he contends that the petitioner, having voluntarily withdrawn the earlier writ petitions, cannot initiate a fresh petition on the same cause of action to challenge the order that was previously assailed. 2. In support of this contention, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 5. 3. He further submits that the petitioner withdrew the earlier writ petitions only after this Court expressed its disinclination to grant relief, and as such, the present petition is not maintainable. 4. Upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds merit in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8819 WP No. 32215 of 2024 the objections raised by learned counsel for respondent No.3. 5. In this regard, it is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the order passed in the earlier writ petitions, which reads as follows: Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions have filed memos seeking permission to withdraw the writ petitions. The memos read as follows: "The petitioner seeks leave of this Hon'ble Court to withdraw the above writ petition. Wherefore,it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the above writ petition as withdrawn, in the interest of justice and equity. In light of the memos filed, both the petitions are dismissed." 6. In view of the legal principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service(supra), this Court finds that the petitioner, having previously challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner in an earlier round of litigation, had voluntarily chosen to withdraw the said writ petitions. The act of withdrawal was an informed and conscious decision - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8819 WP No. 32215 of 2024 taken by the petitioner, without any compulsion or external coercion. Therefore, having once elected to abandon the earlier challenge, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to reagitate the same cause by way of a fresh writ petition. 7. Furthermore, it is an undisputed fact that while withdrawing the earlier writ petitions, the petitioner did not seek the leave of the Court to reinitiate proceedings on the same subject matter at a later stage. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service (supra), has laid down the categorical legal principle that once a writ petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India is withdrawn without the explicit permission of the Court to file a fresh petition on the same issue, such withdrawal operates as a bar to a subsequent writ petition concerning the same subject matter. This doctrine is premised on the principles of public policy, judicial discipline, and the need to prevent litigants from indulging - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8819 WP No. 32215 of 2024 in forum shopping or re-litigation, thereby ensuring finality in judicial proceedings. 8. In light of the authoritative pronouncement in Sarguja Transport Service (supra), this Court holds that the petitioner, having unconditionally withdrawn the earlier writ petitions, is precluded from resurrecting the same cause of action through the present writ petition. Allowing such a course of action would be contrary to the established principles of law and would defeat the doctrine of judicial finality. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15