Filing successive writ petitions for the same relief after failing to get interim relief in earlier writ petition is not allowed. Writ petitions are provided as a remedy; filing multiple writs claiming same relief shall not be encouraged and heavy cost could be imposed as a penalty in such cases. This practice was deprecated by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court presided by J. Sanjay Dhar and J. Puneet Gupta in the case of Mubashir Ashraf Bhat vs. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and othrs. [WP(C) No.379/2020] and [WP(C) No.1216/2020].
In the instant case, Community Based Medical College, Bangladesh issued admission offer in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of which education loan in the amount of Rs.30.00 lac was sanctioned by the respondent Corporation in favour of petitioner for pursing MBBS. There was a delay in the sanctioning of loan against which the petitioner filed the first writ petition. The first installment of loan was released by the respondent but the College authorities refused to admit her, as a consequence whereof, the petitioner approached M/S Khwaja Younus Ali Medical College, Bangladesh through her consultancy service and secured her admission in the said College. The first installment amount which was released by the respondent in favour of Community Based Medical College, Bangladesh was transferred to Khwaja Younus Ali Medical College, Bangladesh. According to the respondent, the transfer of amount was made without information to it and therefore the request of the petitioner for the release of second installment could not be accepted. Hence, the petitioner filed the second writ.
The court held, “Ordinarily, the remedy available for a party complaining of breach of contract lies for seeking damages or for enforcing specific performance of terms of the contract in a Civil Court. It is only in cases where a Public Authority has acted arbitrarily or unreasonably or with malafide intention that the Writ Court would step in. The action of the respondent-Corporation in not releasing the second installment of loan in favour of the petitioner appears to be justified and the same cannot be termed either arbitrary or malafide.”
The honorable court further held, “Before parting, this Court would like to deprecate the practice of filing successive writ petitions for the same relief after failing to get the interim relief in the earlier writ petition(s). The present case is a classic example of the same. The petitioner, after having failed to get an interim order for release of loan installment in earlier writ petition, filed a second writ petition for a similar relief. Ordinarily, this Court would have imposed heavy costs upon the petitioner for resorting to this unhealthy practice, but, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a student, a lenient view of the matter is taken and the petitioner is warned to be careful in future in such matters.”