Judgment :- VEERASWAMI J. This petition under article 226 of the Constitution is to direct the first respondent, who is the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle III, Madras-34, to desist from taking recovery proceedings pursuant to his notice dated May 17, 1966, under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 "When an application for an order of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus has been made, argued, and refused on the ground of defects in the case as disclosed in the affidavits supporting the application, it is not competent for the applicant to make a second application for the same order on amended affidavits containing fresh materials. The rule applies even in cases where defects in the case which caused the refusal of the first application are remedied in the second and it makes no difference whether the motion is made in a private capacity or by a law officer on public grounds" * Though this passage relates to disposal of the earlier application due to defects in the affidavits, the rule on principle should equally apply to failure to urge grounds, whether factual or legal, which were available and might and ought to have been urged in the earlier application. In Mangat Ram Kuthiala v. Commissioner of Income-tax the above passage from Halsbury's Laws of England, was cited, and it was pointed out "It is thus a settled rule that the court will not allow a party to succeed, on a second application, when it has previously applied for the very same thing and failed, except in case of alteration in the form of a title or jurat in the affidavit." * We are of opinion, therefore, that we cannot allow a second petition on the same subject-matter The petition is dismissed with costs of the first respondent. Counsel's fee Rs. 100.