JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Aditya, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Govind Saran, the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner was transferred from Bareilly Division to Moradabad Division by an order dated 30.4.2004. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this transfer order, filed a representation before the authority concerned and thereafter approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 19520 of 2004, which was disposed of by an order dated 19.5,2004, directing the respondents, to decide the representation of the petitioner. The authority concerned, rejected the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter, again filed writ petition No. 23214 of 2004, and the Court, by a reasoned judgment dated 3.5.2005, dismissed the aforesaid writ petition. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Special Appeal No. 674 of 2005 which was also dismissed by a judgment dated 6.7.2005.
3. Upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the respondents issued an order dated 13.5.2005 by which the petitioner was relieved and was directed to join the place of posting as per the original transfer order. The petitioner has now challenged this order dated 13.5.2005, by which he has been relieved. The relieving order is, based on the original transfer order dated 30.4.2004, which has been affirmed by this Court in the writ petition as well as in the Special Appeal.
4. The relieving order is based on the transfer order and therefore based on the same cause of action. Since the transfer order has already been affirmed by this Court, no second writ petition for the same cause of action could be filed. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.
5. Challenging the relieving order within one week of the dismissal of the Special Appeal is a gross misuse of the process of the Court. Such type of practice is deprecated. The petitioner is guilty of misusing the process of the Court, hence he is liable to pay cost which I assess at Rs. 5000.00. Not only the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner is also responsible. He should have advised his client accordingly, instead of filing the second writ petition, which was based on the same cause of action. Since the counsel for the petitioner is the same who appeared in the earlier writ petition as well as in the Special Appeal, he is also guilty of misusing the process of the Court. Since the petitioner is a young lawyer and has acknowledged his mistake and promises that such type of mistake would not occur in future, I intend to take a lenient view and impose a cost of Rs. 1000.00 only.
6. Let the amount of Rs. 5000.00 and Rs. 1000.00 be deposited by the petitioner and his counsel within one month from today before the Registrar General, who in turn shall deposit the same under the " High Court Legal Services Committee Allahabad" Account, failing which, the said amount shall be recovered by the Registrar General as arrears of land revenue. Office is directed to place a copy of this order before the Registrar General for necessary compliance within 10 days. Compliance of this order should be placed before this Court in chambers after six weeks.
7. Office is directed to issue a copy of this order to the President of the High Court Bar Association as well as to/me President of the Advocate Association within two weeks.