Public policy. Unconditional withdrawal of public interest litigation acts as a bar to file fresh writ petition seeking same reliefs. Karnataka High Court.

India Awake for Transparency vs The Director Directorate of Enforcement and others. Writ Petition 12073/2020 decided on 21 January 2021.

Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/359840/1/WP12073-20-21-01-2021.pdf

Relevant paragraphs: 3. In this writ petition, petitioner has inter alia prayed for a direction against Director of Enforcement to register a case of money laundering arising out of scheduled offences set out in Special Case No.69/2020 on the file of learned XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru based on the information given by petitioner in its representation dated January 31, 2020.

4. Shri. Nagesh, learned Senior Advocate made following submissions. Petitioner has unconditionally withdrawn the PIL. Therefore, this petition is not maintainable on  the  ground of public policy.

13. In the PIL, Director of Enforcement was arrayed as respondent No.7. As recorded hereinabove, petitioner had sought for a direction against respondents No. 1 to 10 therein to constitute a multi-Disciplinary Team to investigate and prosecute Mr. Azim Premji and his associates. Prayer clause (i) in this writ petition is for a direction against  the Enforcement Directorate to register a case for offences of money laundering arising out of the scheduled offences in Special Case No.69/2020. The trial of the said case has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

16. This Court, after considering the rival contentions and the authorities in Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P.Gwalior and  others (1987)1 SCC 5 and Sheonandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar and  others (1987)1 SCC 288 in W.P. No.13838/2020 filed by the petitioner herein, has held that the said writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of public policy.

17 & 18. The ratio in the case of Sarguja is fully applicable   to the facts of this case also. In view of the above, the preliminary objection raised by learned Senior Advocates for private  respondents that this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of public policy is sustained. Resultantly, writ petition stands dismissed.

Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.