M.K. Sharma, J.@mdashBy this petition the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to immediately release the seized cycle rickshaws of the petitioners with a further directions not to impound or seize the cycle rickshaws of the petitioners till such time a decision is taken on their applications in accordance with law.
2. It may be stated herein that the writ petition namely C.W. 1742/1990 was disposed of finally by this Court by an order dated 12.12.1991. It has been observed in the said order dated 12.12.1991 thus "that the Counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi stated that all the cases of the petitioners Along with other applications would be taken up for consideration and decision would be taken thereon in accordance with the clarification and observation given by the Supreme Court within a period of 3 months." It appears that in pursuance of the aforesaid statement made by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, this Court by order dated 12.12.1991 directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to take a decision in accordance with the observations and clarifications of the Supreme Court and decide the applications of the petitioners.
3. Subsequent to the disposal of the aforesaid writ petition the respondent Corporation came up with a new scheme for grant of cycle-rickshaws in different Zones of Delhi and invited applications for issuance of fresh licenses as well as renewal of old licenses. In the present petition the petitioners have stated that in order to avoid unnecessary complications and subsequent to promulgation of the new scheme by the respondent Corporation, the petitioners applied afresh to the Corporation for issuance of fresh licenses, but on the said applications of the petitioners no decision had been taken by the respondent Corporation in pursuance of the scheme of the Corporation promulgated in June/July, 1994.
It appears from the record that subsequent to the promulgation of the scheme of June/July, 1994 another writ petition namely C.W. No. 3015/1994 has been filed by the petitioners in this Court, which is pending disposal in view of a miscellaneous application filed by the petitioners after the disposal of the said writ petition by this Court, by order dated 27.7.1994.
4. It has also been brought to our notice by the Counsel for the parties that in view of purported non-compliance by the respondent Corporation of the orders of this Court passed on 113.1991 and 12.2.1991 in C.W. No. 1742/1993 a contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners in this Court which has since been numbered and registered as C.C.P. 19/1995 and pending in this Court wherein show cause notices have already been issued to the officials of the respondent Corporation.
5. The respondent Corporation has filed an affidavit in the aforesaid C.M.P. No. 437/1995 wherein it has been stated that the General Secretary of the All Delhi Cycle-Rickshaw Operators Union had sent a letter of thanks to the respondent Corporation stating therein that all the cycle-rickshaws of the petitioners noted in C.W.P. No. 1742/1990 have been branded by the staff of Municipal Corporation of Delhi as directed by this Court under Order dated 12.12.1991. It has further been stated that some of the petitioners who are widows brought more than one cycle rickshaw for branding and that in the year 1992-93 no application was received for the purpose of branding and in fact no cycle rickshaw was produced by any persons for the purpose of branding. So far the year 1994 is concerned, it has further been stated in the said affidavit filed by the respondent Corporation that few of the persons shown in Annexure P-1/A of the petition did apply for grant of cycle rickshaw licenses but on the appointed date and at the appointed time and hour none of the aforesaid persons came forward for getting the cycle rickshaw inspected for the grant of license except one person whose name figured at Si. No. 4 in Annexure P-1 / A and whose three rickshaws offered by her for inspection were duly found fit and she was granted 3 cycle rickshaw licenses.
6. In view of the aforesaid statements made by the respondent Corporation we are not inclined to interfere in the present petition as the same involves disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated upon in exercise of our extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Besides, since a contempt petition in respect of purported non-compliance of the order of this Court passed on 11.3.1991 and 12.2.1991 in C.W.P. No. 1742/1990 has already been preferred by the petitioners in this Court and is pending for final disposal, we see no reason why we should issue further direction in the present petition as sought for by the petitioners. In this connection we may also appropriately refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case, of
"The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as no proceedings were pending before it. The High Court committed error in entertaining the respondent''s application as no proceedings were pending before it. The High Court committed error in entertaining the respondent''s application which was founded on a separate cause of action. When proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of writ petition it is not open to the Court to reopen the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of action. It this principle is not followed there would be confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease to have any meaning."
7. In our considered opinion the contents of the present petition namely --G.M.P. No. 437/1995 disclose a fresh and separate cause of action and Therefore, it would not be appropriate for us to entertain the present application giving rise to a separate cause of action altogether after the final disposal of the writ petition No. 1742/1990. In view of our aforesaid findings we see no merit in this application and the same is rejected.
