- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16879 WP No. 105479 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 105479 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SAMSUN.L ABRAHAM AGE: 33 YEARS, HOUSE NO:23, SAGAR COLONY, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD-580020. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, RAIL SOUDHA, HQ OFFICE GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD-580020. 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, RAIL SOUDHA, PCOMS OFFICE GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD-580020. 3. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBBALLI DIVISION, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD-580020. 4. SR.DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBBALLI DIVISION, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD-580020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MRUTYUNJAY T. BANGI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16879 WP No. 105479 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: 1. WRIT OF MANDAMUS OF DIRECTION TO RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION TO ENGAGE THE PETITIONER AS SUBSTITUTE GROUP-‘D’ OR ANY SUCH SIMILar POST IN RAILWAYS VIDE ANNEXURE ‘A’ AND ANNEXURE-'B' DATED 17.01.2011 & 16.11.2011 RESPECTIVELY. 2. ANY SUCH ORDER/ DIRECTION MAY PLEASE ISSUE IN LINE WITH CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE THIS WRIT PETITION TO SUB SERVE THE JUSTICE. 3. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT 12.10.2012 DATED: BEARING NO. H/P.268/III/OPTG/SUB/VOL-I ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-'C' AND RECONSIDER TO RECONSIDER THE PETITIONER FOR THE POST OF GROUP-'D' OR ANY SUCH SIMILAR POST IN RAILWAYS AS PER ANNEXURE-'A'. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: a. Writ of mandamus of Direction to Railway Administration to engage the petitioner as substitute Group-‘D’ or any such similar post in railways vide Annexure-‘A’ and Annexure-'B' dated 17.01.2011 & 16.11.2011 respectively. b. Any such order/ Direction may please issue in line with circumstances of the this writ petition to sub serve the justice. c. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the endorsement 12.10.2012 dated: bearing No. H/P.268/III/OPTG/Sub/VOL-I issued by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-'C' and reconsider to reconsider the petitioner for the post of Group-'D' or any such similar post in railways as per Annexure-'A'. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16879 WP No. 105479 of 2019 2. The very petitioner was before this Court in Writ petition No.65169 of 2012 seeking the following prayer: “Direct the concerned authorities of the Railway Department i.e. respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the petitioner for joining as substitute (Group-D) in the Hubli division in Traffic department as per the approval of engagement of the petitioner in the said post.” 3. The prayer of the petitioner in the subject petition and the petition earlier are verbatim similar. The said petition stood disposed as withdrawn. No liberty was granted to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. 4. The Apex Court in the case of Sarguja Transport service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and others1 has observed that in the event the petition is withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition, the fresh petition would not become entertainable. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: “ 9. The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that article. On this point the decision in Daryao case [AIR 1961 SC 1457 : (1962) 1 SCR 574] is of no assistance. But we are of the view that the principle underlying Rule 1 of 1 AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 88 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16879 WP No. 105479 of 2019 Order XXIII of the Code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once again. While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without such permission. In the instant case the High Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable before it in respect of the same subject-matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition. We, however, make it clear that whatever we have stated in this order may not be considered as being applicable to a writ petition involving the personal liberty of an individual in which the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or seeks to enforce the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution since such a case stands on a different footing altogether. We, however leave this question open.” 5. In the light of the said judgment of the Apex Court, the petition does not deserve any entertainment and accordingly stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Kmv CT:ANB