Party Can't Invoke Article 226 Jurisdiction After Withdrawing Previous Writ Without Seeking Liberty To File Afresh: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a party which withdraws a writ petition without obtaining liberty to file a fresh petition cannot subsequently invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction again on the same cause of action, observing that the remedy under Article 226 is deemed to have been abandoned. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 124]

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sumathi Jagadam disposed of a second writ petition challenging the deduction of seigniorage charges (positive return, or carry, on issued notes and coins)  from the running account (RA) bills of a contractor engaged by Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL).

The Court held that the earlier writ petition on the same cause of action had been withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition.

The Court observed:

"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 Article 32 of the Constitution of India since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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petition was not maintainable before it in respect of the same subject matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition. It is not in dispute that the selfsame subject matter is the subject matter in the earlier writ petition and in the present writ petition, and as long as the said fact is not in dispute, the question of maintainability is the primary issue.

After going through the citations relied on by the petitioner, I am of the view that the proper course of action would be to file a petition to review or recall the earlier order dated 09.11.2022, passed in W.P.No.4720 of 2018.”

The dispute arose after seigniorage charges were deducted from the contractor's RA bills. The contractor initially challenged the deductions by filing a writ petition in 2018, but subsequently withdrew it on the ground that the cause no longer survived.

It thereafter filed the present writ petition, contending that the final completion certificate issued after completion of the project gave rise to a fresh cause of action.

The petitioner maintained that the earth excavated during construction was reused within the project site and therefore did not attract seigniorage fee.

It also sought release of the amounts withheld from its RA bills, contending that the final completion certificate issued after completion of the project gave rise to a fresh cause of action. 

However, the Court noted that the same completion certificate had already been placed on record in the earlier writ proceedings in 2018 and, therefore, could not constitute a fresh cause of action.

Holding that the maintainability of the second writ petition had to be decided before examining the legality of the seigniorage levy, the Court observed that the proper course for the petitioner was to seek review or recall of the earlier order instead of filing a fresh writ petition.

Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it held that a writ petition withdrawn without liberty cannot be refiled on the same cause of action under Article 226, as the remedy stands abandoned.

Accordingly, without examining the merits of the dispute regarding levy of seigniorage charges, the Court disposed of the writ petition on the ground of maintainability, leaving it open to the parties to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

Case Title: M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Union of India & Others

Case No.: W.P. No. 20798 of 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: G.V.S. Ganesh

Counsel for the Respondents: C.V.R. Rudra Prasad (Central Government Counsel), Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, Government Pleader for Industries & Commerce, and V. Subrahmanyam.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 124