The Andhra Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant ruling on the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, holding that withdrawal of a writ petition without permission to file a fresh petition precludes the petitioner from instituting another writ petition on the same cause of action. This judgment reinforces the principle that litigants cannot engage in 'bench-hunting' tactics by withdrawing and refiling petitions, thereby ensuring judicial efficiency and consistency in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited (L&T), a leading construction company, entered into Agreement No. VSP/CONT/C-06 of 2016-17 dated 17.08.2016 with the 2nd respondent, M/s Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL), a Government of India undertaking, for the execution of works related to the AWSR Project in Visakhapatnam. During the course of the project, the petitioner excavated earth and reused it for construction purposes. The respondents, particularly the 4th and 5th respondents (Director and Assistant Director of Mines and Geology), sought to levy seigniorage fees on the excavated earth, contending that it constituted a mineral under the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The petitioner disputed this levy, arguing that the earth was reused in the course of execution of the works and did not attract seigniorage charges.
Key Facts
- 17.08.2016: Agreement executed between L&T and RINL for AWSR Project
- Course of Execution: Petitioner excavated and reused earth for construction purposes
- 03.03.2023: Respondents issued impugned communication (Annexure P.9) withholding/recovering seigniorage charges from the petitioner’s RA (Running Account) Bills
- Claim of Petitioner: Earth reused in execution of works does not attract seigniorage fee
- Claim of Respondents: Excavated earth is a minor mineral, liable for seigniorage under mining laws
Procedural History
The dispute has a protracted litigation trail:
- W.P.No. 4720 of 2018: Earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner on the selfsame cause of action (levy of seigniorage fee)
- 09.11.2022: Order passed in W.P.No. 4720 of 2018, details of which are not specified in the judgment
- Withdrawal of W.P.No. 4720 of 2018: Petitioner withdrew the earlier writ petition on the ground that the cause of action did not survive
- 20.10.2022: Final completion certificate issued for the project, filed in W.P.No. 4720 of 2018
- 10.08.2023: Present writ petition (W.P.No. 20798 of 2023) filed seeking identical reliefs
- 23.12.2025: Present writ petition reserved for orders
- 19.06.2026: Judgment pronounced
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the following reliefs:
- A writ of mandamus declaring that the earth excavated and reused by the petitioner in the course of execution of the works is not liable for levy of seigniorage fee
- A declaration that the action of the respondents in withholding/recovering seigniorage charges from the RA Bills of the petitioner, as communicated vide impugned proceedings dated 03.03.2023, is illegal and arbitrary
- A direction to respondent No. 2 (RINL) to release payments against the RA Bills without any deductions towards seigniorage charges
Additionally, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 1 of 2023 under Section 151 CPC seeking interim relief for release of payments pending disposal of the writ petition.
The Legal Issue
The primary legal question before the Court was:
Whether a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable when the petitioner has previously withdrawn an earlier writ petition on the same cause of action without seeking permission to file a fresh petition?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on several judgments to argue the merits of the case, contending that:
- The levy of seigniorage fee on earth reused in construction is not justified under the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966
- The impugned action of the respondents in withholding payments was arbitrary and illegal
- The petitioner cited decisions from 2007 onwards to support the argument that seigniorage fees are not applicable in such cases
However, the petitioner did not address the maintainability issue arising from the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition.
For the Respondents
The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition:
- The petitioner had withdrawn W.P.No. 4720 of 2018 on the same cause of action without seeking permission to file a fresh petition
- Under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), a plaintiff who withdraws a suit without permission to file a fresh suit is precluded from instituting a fresh suit on the same cause of action
- The respondents argued that this principle extends to writ petitions under Article 226, citing the Supreme Court decision in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed analysis of the maintainability of the writ petition, focusing on the withdrawal of the earlier petition and its implications under Article 226 and Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC.
"The question for our consideration is whether it would or would not advance the cause of justice if the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code is adopted in respect of writ petitions filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India also."
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior, reported in 1987 (1) SCC 5, which held:
"It is plain that when once a writ petition filed in a High Court is withdrawn by the petitioner himself he is precluded from filing an appeal against the order passed in the writ petition because he cannot be considered as a party aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court. He may as stated in Daryao v. State of U.P., [1962] 2 S.C.R. 575 in a case involving the question of enforcement of fundamental rights file a petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the High Court."
The Court further noted:
"In para-9 of the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court, referring to Daryao's case (supra), has held that the said judgment is of no assistance and the principle underlying Order-XXIII Rule-1 of CPC 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. 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."
The Court observed that the selfsame subject matter was the basis of both the earlier writ petition (W.P.No. 4720 of 2018) and the present writ petition (W.P.No. 20798 of 2023). Since the petitioner had withdrawn the earlier petition without seeking permission to file a fresh petition, the Court held that the present writ petition was not maintainable.
The Court distinguished the present case from Daryao v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court had held that withdrawal of a writ petition without permission does not bar a subsequent petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court, as there is no decision on merits by the High Court in such cases. However, the Court clarified that this exception does not apply to Article 226, as the remedy under Article 226 is deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner when the earlier petition was withdrawn without permission.
The Court also noted that the final completion certificate dated 20.10.2022 had been filed in the earlier writ petition, and thus, the contention regarding change of cause of action had no merit.
The Verdict
The Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of non-maintainability, holding that the petitioner’s withdrawal of W.P.No. 4720 of 2018 without permission to file a fresh petition precluded the institution of the present writ petition. The Court refrained from adjudicating the merits of the case, including the legality of the levy of seigniorage fees, leaving it open for the parties to seek appropriate remedies, such as a review or recall petition against the earlier order dated 09.11.2022 passed in W.P.No. 4720 of 2018. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Withdrawal Without Leave Bars Fresh Petition
This judgment reinforces the principle that withdrawal of a writ petition without permission to file a fresh petition operates as a bar to subsequent petitions on the same cause of action. Practitioners must note:
- Strategic Withdrawal: Litigants cannot withdraw a writ petition and later refile it on the same cause of action without seeking explicit permission from the Court at the time of withdrawal
- Implications for Article 226: Unlike Article 32, where withdrawal without permission does not bar a fresh petition, Article 226 does not permit such refiling, as the remedy is deemed abandoned
- No Bench-Hunting: The judgment discourages litigants from engaging in bench-hunting tactics, ensuring judicial efficiency and consistency
Remedies Available After Withdrawal
- Review Petition: If a litigant withdraws a writ petition without permission, the appropriate remedy is to file a review petition against the order passed in the earlier writ petition
- Recall Petition: Alternatively, a recall petition may be filed to seek reconsideration of the earlier order
- Fresh Cause of Action: If there is a material change in circumstances or a new cause of action, a fresh writ petition may be maintainable, but this must be specifically pleaded and demonstrated
Practical Takeaways for Practitioners
- Always Seek Permission: When withdrawing a writ petition, always seek permission to file a fresh petition, even if the chances of success seem low
- Document Change in Cause of Action: If relying on a change in cause of action, ensure that the facts and grounds are distinct and materially different from the earlier petition
- Avoid Tactical Withdrawals: Courts are increasingly cracking down on tactical withdrawals, and litigants must be prepared to argue the merits rather than rely on procedural maneuvers
