Court Applies Rule of Public Policy to Dismiss Writ Petition Challenging Development Authority's Order Following Withdrawal of Revision as "Not Pressed"
In a significant ruling delivered on October 8, 2026, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justices Siddhartha Varma and Kunal Ravi Singh, dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S Raj Hans Towers Private Limited challenging the Meerut Development Authority's order cancelling the allotment of a commercial plot and initiating fresh auction proceedings. The Court held that since the petitioner had earlier filed a statutory revision against the impugned order under Section 41(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, and subsequently withdrew the revision as "not pressed," the writ petition was not maintainable based on the rule of public policy.
The dispute centered around the cancellation of allotment of Commercial Plot No. CP-03, Pocket-C, Shraddhapuri Phase-2, Meerut, originally allotted to Raj Hans Towers at a premium rate higher than the reserve price. The petitioner defaulted on payment installments despite multiple demand letters and a one-time settlement scheme, leading to cancellation and forfeiture orders by the Development Authority in 2013.
Raj Hans Towers contested the cancellation and forfeiture through multiple rounds of litigation, including writ petitions and appeals, all of which were dismissed by the High Court and Supreme Court. The petitioner subsequently filed revisions before the State Government under Section 41(3) of the 1973 Act, leading to several remand orders requiring the Authority to reconsider the petitioner's representations. Despite favorable interim directions from the revisional authority to recalculate dues and afford the petitioner a final opportunity to pay, the Authority repeatedly rejected the petitioner's applications and proceeded with fresh auction notices.
The petitioner challenged the latest order dated May 23, 2026, by filing another revision under Section 41(3). However, on June 11, 2026, the petitioner applied to withdraw this revision as "not pressed." The revisional authority accepted the withdrawal and concluded the revision proceedings on June 30, 2026.
The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Authority's refusal to comply with the revisional order and the fresh auction notice. The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable since the petitioner had abandoned its statutory remedy by withdrawing the revision. They relied on the settled principle that a litigant who waives or abandons a remedy cannot reopen the same cause of action before another forum.
The Court thoroughly examined the issue of maintainability at the admission stage. It noted that the rule of public policy, as enshrined in Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, precludes a party from initiating fresh litigation after abandoning a prior remedy. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents including Sarguja Transport Services v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1987), Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. (1999), and Satheesh V.K. v. The Federal Bank Ltd. (2025), which consistently apply this principle in writ and appellate proceedings.
Applying this doctrine, the Court observed that the revisional authority was fully competent and seized of the matter, having issued several remand orders and directions favorable to the petitioner. The petitioner's decision to withdraw the revision as "not pressed" amounted to abandonment of that remedy and, accordingly, barred the petitioner from challenging the same order through a writ petition. The Court held that it would be contrary to judicial discipline and public policy to allow the petitioner to re-agitate the matter after expressly abandoning the statutory revision.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable without examining the merits of the underlying challenge. The Court clarified that the petitioner remains free to pursue other remedies in accordance with law but cannot circumvent the statutory revision process by filing a writ petition after withdrawing revision proceedings.
This ruling underscores the binding effect of statutory revision remedies and the application of the rule of public policy to prevent multiplicity of litigation in administrative disputes involving development authorities.
Bottom Line:
Withdrawal of statutory revision as "not pressed" against the impugned order bars maintainability of subsequent writ petition on same cause of action by application of rule of public policy; abandonment of remedy amounts to waiver of challenge.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226, Constitution of India, 1950; Section 41(3), Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973; Order XXIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
M/S Raj Hans Towers Private Limited v. State of U.P., (All)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2993252
