The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an authority's order as not maintainable, holding that the petitioner's withdrawal of a revision proceeding as 'not pressed' triggered the Rule of Public Policy, barring fresh judicial intervention on the same cause of action. The court affirmed that abandonment of a statutory remedy precludes subsequent writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, M/S Raj Hans Towers Private Limited, participated in an e-tender-cum-auction for allotment of Commercial Plot No. CP-3, Pocket-C, Shraddhapuri Awasiya Yojna, Phase-2, Meerut. The reserve rate for the 5000 square meter plot was fixed at ₹5,940 per square meter. The petitioner bid ₹7,220 per square meter, which was accepted by respondent No. 3 (Meerut Development Authority) via order dated 10.07.2006, with allotment/confirmation letter issued on 11.07.2006.
Key Facts
-
The petitioner deposited earnest money of ₹29,70,000 and was required to pay the balance premium of ₹1,08,30,000 by 11.08.2006
-
Subsequently, the petitioner deposited allotment money, leaving a balance of ₹2,77,74,845 to be paid in 8 six-monthly instalments of ₹50,18,203 each, starting 28.08.2007 and ending 27.06.2011, with 18% interest
-
The petitioner deposited a total of ₹2,12,50,000 but fell into arrears on subsequent instalments
-
Demand letters were issued by the Authority on 08.07.2010, 20.07.2011, 31.10.2011, 30.12.2011, 22.01.2011, and 10.04.2013
-
The Authority cancelled the allotment and forfeited the deposited amount via order dated 19.06.2013, communicated by letter dated 23.07.2013 (sent via registered post on 24.07.2013)
-
The petitioner received the cancellation letter on 14.02.2014 and filed restoration applications on 20.02.2014 and 21.02.2014
Procedural History
-
27.02.2014: First writ petition (Writ C No. 12751/2014) challenging cancellation and forfeiture orders dismissed
-
12.09.2014: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 18169/2014 dismissed by Supreme Court
-
19.06.2014: Petitioner filed representation for restoration with demand draft of ₹50,00,000 and cheque of ₹1,00,00,000
-
08.01.2015: Petitioner filed representation seeking refund of deposited amount post-103rd Board Meeting resolution
-
28.05.2015: Second writ petition (Writ C No. 32522/2015) for refund dismissed
-
07.11.2015: Authority dismissed restoration representation, holding forfeited amount non-returnable
-
06.04.2016: Third writ petition (Writ C No. 14917/2016) challenging restoration rejection dismissed
-
27.11.2018: Revision under Section 41(3) of UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 allowed; order dated 19.07.2014 set aside; matter remanded for re-hearing
-
22.03.2023: Authority dismissed restoration representation dated 19.06.2014
-
31.05.2023: Revision allowed; matter remanded back to Authority
-
14.09.2023: Authority again dismissed representation and upheld 19.06.2013 order
-
31.05.2024: Revision allowed; matter remanded for re-hearing
-
26.11.2025: Authority rejected representation; held orders dated 19.06.2013 and 14.09.2023 require no interference; property to be subjected to fresh auction
-
23.03.2026: Revision allowed; order dated 26.11.2025 set aside; Authority directed to recalculate dues with interest and provide one final payment opportunity
-
15.04.2026: Petitioner filed representation seeking compliance with 23.03.2026 order
-
23.05.2026: Authority dismissed representation, holding earlier orders require no interference and property to be auctioned afresh (impugned order)
-
05.06.2026 & 11.06.2026: Petitioner filed revision against 23.05.2026 order but later withdrew it as 'not pressed'
-
30.06.2026: Revisional Authority finalised proceedings as 'not pressed'
-
08.10.2026: Present writ petition (WRIT-C No. 37986/2026) filed challenging 23.05.2026 order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (i) Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.05.2026 (ii) Certiorari quashing the e-auction notice/advertisement dated 25.08.2026 relating to Commercial Plot No. CP-3 (iii) Mandamus directing respondents to implement order No. Pun-341/Aath-8-26-266Pun/2025 dated 23.03.2026 (iv) Mandamus directing respondents to compute amount payable per tender-cum-auction Clause 9 (v) Mandamus restraining respondents from auctioning, allotting, transferring, or creating third-party rights over the plot (vi) Any other writ/order/direction deemed fit (vii) Costs of the writ petition
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 23.05.2026 by means of a revision under Section 41(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, which was later withdrawn as 'not pressed' by the petitioner, thereby triggering the Rule of Public Policy under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the revision remedy under Section 41(3) of the 1973 Act is statutory and distinct from writ jurisdiction; withdrawal of a revision does not constitute abandonment of the right to approach the High Court under Article 226. Reliance was placed on the principle that the revisional Authority's directions (to recalculate dues and provide one final opportunity) created a valuable right, and the impugned order passed without jurisdiction since the Authority failed to comply with those directions. The petitioner argued that earlier writ petitions (Writ C Nos. 12751/2014 and 32522/2015) addressed different reliefs (cancellation/forfeiture and refund) and did not challenge restoration under the brochure's terms, thus the restoration remedy remained live.
For the Respondent
The respondent argued that the petitioner's withdrawal of the revision as 'not pressed' amounted to abandonment of the remedy, invoking the Rule of Public Policy under CPC Order XXIII Rule 1. It was submitted that the question of restoration had attained finality through successive dismissals of writ petitions and special leave petitions, and the petitioner lacked locus to maintain successive revisions without challenging the underlying order in earlier proceedings. The respondent emphasized that the impugned order was justified as the Authority's actions regarding cancellation, forfeiture, and restoration had been validated by the High Court and Supreme Court.
The Court's Analysis
The court examined the applicability of the Rule of Public Policy to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, noting its settlement in Sarguja Transport Services vs State and Upadhyay & Co. vs State of U.P. and others. It held that the principle 'who waives, abandons or disclaims a right will lose it' applies equally to statutory remedies. The court observed:
"The Rule of Public Policy is based upon a ban on filing a fresh suit if the earlier suit has been abandoned. The principle is enshrined in Order XXIII Rule 1 to 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The issue as to whether the rule applies to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is no longer res integra and has been settled in Sarguja Transport Services vs State; 2as well as Upadhyay & Co. vs. State of U.P. and others;3."
The court found that the petitioner had availed the revision remedy four times previously, with the Authority's orders being set aside on each occasion. However, by withdrawing the revision as 'not pressed' after the Authority's adverse order dated 23.05.2026, the petitioner abandoned the remedy. The court stressed:
"Once the revision has been withdrawn as attained finality as 'not pressed', then the only conclusion this Court can draw is that the petitioner has waived/abandoned his claim regarding the challenge to the order dated 23.05.2026 as the order dated 23.05.2026 was directly challenged in the revision as well. We would be remiss in our exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 if the Rule of public policy was not invoked to dismiss the present petition."
The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the revisional Authority's directions created a subsisting right, holding that non-compliance by the Authority did not revive the remedy after abandonment. It concluded that entertaining the writ petition would undermine judicial discipline, as a quasi-judicial Authority must comply with superior Authority's directions, and the petitioner's conduct violated this principle.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The court held that the petitioner's withdrawal of the revision proceeding as 'not pressed' constituted abandonment of the remedy under the Rule of Public Policy (CPC Order XXIII Rule 1), barring fresh writ proceedings under Article 226. No costs were awarded. The petitioner was left to pursue its remedy before the appropriate statutory forum in accordance with law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Rule of Public Policy Extends to Statutory Remedies
The judgment clarifies that the Rule of Public Policy under CPC Order XXIII Rule 1 applies not only to ordinary civil suits but also to statutory revision proceedings. Practitioners must ensure that once a statutory remedy (like revision under Section 41(3) of the 1973 Act) is invoked and later withdrawn as 'not pressed', the petitioner cannot subsequently approach the High Court under Article 226 challenging the same order. This prevents repetitive litigation on identical causes of action.
Withdrawal as 'Not Pressed' Constitutes Abandonment
The court explicitly equated withdrawal of a revision as 'not pressed' with abandonment of the remedy. For similar cases, lawyers advising clients must caution against withdrawing revision proceedings after an adverse order, as such withdrawal triggers the Rule of Public Policy. The remedy must be pursued to completion before seeking judicial intervention; partial engagement followed by withdrawal forfeits the right to challenge the order in writ jurisdiction.
Jurisdictional Hierarchy Requires Exhaustion
The judgment reinforces that petitioners must exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the High Court. Here, the petitioner had multiple opportunities to avail the revision remedy (successfully four times) but abandoned it after the fifth attempt. The court emphasized that the Authority's non-compliance with revisional directions did not revive the remedy post-abandonment. Practitioners should advise clients to comply with statutory procedures fully, as judicial discretion under Article 226 will not entertain cases where the statutory forum's process was withdrawn mid-stream.
