IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS.40478-40482/2017 & 40483-40486/2017 (EDN-MED-ADM) BETWEEN:
1. MISS DORNA ZEIDI D/O AZIM AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 2. MR.SEYED AMIR ARSALAN SHAHMIRI S/O SEYED MASOUD AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 3. MR.SEYED AMIR ARDAVAN SHAHMIRI S/O SEYED MASOUD AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 4. MR.POURIA KHODAPARAST S/O AHMAD AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 5. MISS FATEMEH RAZMJOUEI D/O MOHAMMAD AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 6. MR.SIAVASH KHODAPARAST KAZEROONI S/O MOHAMMAD MOHSEN AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 7. MR. FARDIN HASHEMI S/O MASOUD AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 8. MR.REZA SHARIFI S/O SARDAR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 9. MR.ALI KARIMI S/O ALLAH KARAM AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 9 ARE STUDENTS STUDYING 1ST YEAR BDS COURSE ADMITTED TO THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2015-2016 IN DR.SYAMALA REDDY DENTAL COLLEGE & RESEARCH CENTRE, NO.111/1 SGR COLLEGE MAIN ROAD MUNNEKOLALA MARATHAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 037 ...PETITIONERS (BY MISS NIYATHI.M FOR SRI ARJUN REGO, M/S.REGO & REGO, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MEDICAL EDUCATION MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH "T" BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR 3. DR.SYAMALA REDDY DENTAL COLLEGE & RESEARCH CENTRE, NO.111/1 SGR COLLEGE MAIN ROAD MUNNEKOLALA MARATHAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 037 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL …RESPONDENTS (GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE SERVED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER/LETTER DTD.27.4.2016 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE DISAPPROVAL OF THE ADMISSION OF PETITIONERS 1 TO 9 ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Ag.CJ (Oral):
1. Petitioners earlier had presented writ petition Nos.34151-34155/2016 & 34156-34160/2016 challenging disapproval of their admission for Under Graduate Dental Course for the year 2015-16 by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences as per their communication dated 27.04.2016. The aforesaid writ petitions were withdrawn on 06.12.2016 to approach the Supreme Court. No liberty was granted to the petitioners to institute a fresh writ petition in this Court on the same cause of action.
2. The very same communication impugned in the aforesaid earlier writ petitions is again impugned in these writ petitions. As stated above, no liberty was granted to the petitioners to institute a fresh writ petition in this Court on the same cause of action. Hence, these writ petitions are not maintainable in law in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service v.
S.T.A. Tribunal, Gwalior (AIR 1987 SC 88); it is appropriate to refer to the following observations made therein:
“9. The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Art. 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's case (supra) is of no assistance. But we are of the view that the principle underlying R. 1 of O. 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 Art. 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 Art. 32 of the Constitution since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution 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 Art. 21 of the Constitution since such a case stands on a different footing altogether. We, however, leave this question open.”
Petitions dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Yn.
Sd/- JUDGE