WP/20798/2023 of M/S. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED Vs THE UNION OF INDIA on 18 June 2026

ORDER:

1. The present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare that the action of the respondents herein in withholding/recovering the seigniorage charges of the RA (running account) Bills of the petitioner, vide communication dated 03.03.2023, is illegal and arbitrary.

2. In the present writ petition, the proceedings dated 03.03.2023 has been filed as Annexure P.9, and the said proceedings in the 2nd reference refer to the filing of the writ petition in W.P.No.4720 of 2018.

3. This writ petition is filed on 10.08.2023, enclosing a copy of the order passed in W.P.No.4720 of 2018 as Annexure P.6 at page No.38 of the material papers filed in support of the writ petition.

4. It appears from the reading of the aforesaid order, writ petition No.4720 of 2018 filed in respect of the selfsame cause of action has been withdrawn by the writ petitioner on the ground of the cause not being survived.

5. In the light of the aforesaid facts, a question would arise whether the present writ petition filed on 10.08.2023 is maintainable in the eye of law.

JS,J W.P.No.20798 of 2023

6. In the case of Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior, reported in 1987 (1) SCC 5, the ratio is explained in para-8 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under: “8. The question for our consideration is whether it would or would not advance the cause of justice if the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code is adopted in respect of writ petitions filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India also. It is common knowledge that very often after a writ petition is heard for some time when the petitioner or his counsel finds that the Court is not likely to pass an order admitting the petition, request is made by the petitioner or by his counsel, to permit the petitioner to withdraw from the writ petition without seeking permission to institute a fresh writ petition. A Court which is unwilling to admit the petition would not ordinarily grant liberty to file a fresh petition while it may just agree to permit the withdrawal of the petition. It is plain that when once a writ petition filed in a High Court is withdrawn by the petitioner himself he is precluded from filing an appeal against the order passed in the writ petition because he cannot be considered as a party aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court. He may as stated in Daryao v. State of U.P., [1962] 2 S.C.R. 575 in a case involving the question of enforcement of fundamental rights file a petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India because in such a case

JS,J W.P.No.20798 of 2023

there has been no decision on the merits by the High Court. The relevant observation of this Court in Daryao's case (supra) is to be found at page 593 and it is as follows: "If the petition is dismissed as withdrawn it cannot be a bar to a subsequent petition under Art. 32, because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the Court. We wish to make it clear that the conclusions thus reached by us are confined only to the point of res judicata which has been argued as a preliminary issue in these writ petitions and no other."

7. In para-9 of the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court, referring to Daryao's case (supra), has held that the said judgment is of no assistance and the principle underlying Order-XXIII Rule-1 of CPC 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. 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 Article 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 Article 32 of the Constitution of India since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the

JS,J W.P.No.20798 of 2023

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.

8. 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.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a list of citations from 2007 onwards, and all the said decisions relate to the merits of the case, which pertains to whether the levy of seigniorage fees is justified or not.

10. 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.

JS,J W.P.No.20798 of 2023

11. I have also seen the copy of the final completion certificate issued on 20.10.2022, and the same is also said to have been filed in W.P.No.4720 of 2018; hence, the contention regarding the change of cause of action also has no application.

12. In view of the fact that the findings are being rendered in the present writ petition with regard to the maintainability, I refrain myself from going into the merits of the case as canvassed by both the parties except placing on record the stand taken by the 5th respondent by way of additional counter which refers to the bill of quantities and one of the items is payment of royalty and, however, I am not touching the merits of the case leaving it to the parties to seek appropriate remedies.

13. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

19th June, 2026 cbs Whether the order is: Speaking

Reasoned √ Reportable √ Non-Reportable

JS,J W.P.No.20798 of 2023

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

Writ Petition No.20798 of 2023

19th June, 2026 cbs

JS,J W.P.No.20798 of 2023

*THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

+W.P.No.20798 of 2023 % 19.06.2026

Between:

M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited, a company incorporated under the Laws of India, having its registered office at L & T House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001.

... Petitioner

AND

The Union of India, repl. By its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, New Delhi and others

... Respondents

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:

! Counsel for petitioner

: Sri G.V.S. Ganesh

^ Counsel for 1st respondent : Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad ^ Counsel for 2nd respondent : Sri V.Subrahmanyam ^ Counsel for respondent Nos.4&5: The GP for Mines and Geology ^ Counsel for 6th respondent : The GP for Industries & Commerce

? CASES REFERRED :

1) 1987 (1) SCC 5

JS,J W.P.No.20798 of 2023

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI W.P.No.20798 of 2023

Between:

M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited, a company incorporated under the Laws of India, having its registered office at L & T House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001.

... Petitioner

AND

The Union of India, repl. By its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, New Delhi and others

... Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 19.06.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment?

___________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM, J