N. L. GANGULY, J. ( 1 ) ANWAR Jamir filed-this writ petition No 29424 of 1991 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that an order, writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17. 9. 91 passed by Sri Kalyan Singh, Chief Minister, U. P. re-transferring the investigation of case Crime No 272 of 1991 under Sections 147, 148, 149,302 and 201, I. P. C. P. S. Noorpur Distt. Bijnor from C. B. C. I. D. , Bareilly Sector to local police, Bijnor. The further prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 1 State of U. P. through Chief Minister of U. P. not to snatch away the investigation in case crime No 272 of 1991 from C. B. C. I. D. Bareilly to send it local police. It has also been prayed that a writ of mandamus commanding upon the opposite parties not to acres or proceed in any manner against the petitioner in pursuance of the F. I. R. in Case Crime No 272 of 1991 under above mentioned Sections P. S. Noorpur Distt. Bij nor. ( 2 ) THE Division Bench by an order dated 11. 10. 1991 was pleased to grant a weeks time for filing a counter affidavit and a week thereafter for rejoinder affidavit 28th October, 1991 was fixed for admission of the writ petition. An interim order was also passed that no further action shall be taken in pursuance of the order dated 17. 9. 1991 mentioned in para No 14 of the writ petition. The order impugned in the writ petition is referred in paragraph 14 of the writ petition as under: Vide order No 28156 - Section 12/ Bijnor dated 17. 9. 1991 that C. I. D. ADESH KO NIRAST KAR PUNAH The petitioner alleged in the writ petition that he is a political leader and had contested the last General Election from Sebhara Assembly Constituency in 1991 on Janta Dal Ticket. The petitioner`s uncle Jai Singh had also filed his nomination on Janta Dal ticket for the same Constituency. The petitioners was allotted Symbol for contesting the election and his uncle who was denied the partys Symbol, had not withdrawn his nomination but contested the election as Independent Candidate against the petitioner. On 15. 6. The petitioner`s uncle Jai Singh had also filed his nomination on Janta Dal ticket for the same Constituency. The petitioners was allotted Symbol for contesting the election and his uncle who was denied the partys Symbol, had not withdrawn his nomination but contested the election as Independent Candidate against the petitioner. On 15. 6. 1991 when the petitioner was going to the polling station on the polling day, Narendra Pal Singh damaged his Maruti Van. A complaint was lodged at the police station. It is said that Narendra Pal Singh is the nephew of Jai Pal Singh, who was his main supporter. Mahyndra Singh is real brother of Narendra Pal Singh. When they came to know that a complaint has been lodged by the petitioner at the P. S. Seohara, Narendra Pal Singh and Jai Singh, who was an independent Candidate against the petitioner, had hatched up a conspiracy to implicate the petitioner is a false case and a First Information Report was lodged at P. S. Noorpur on 16. 7. 1991 at 9. 45 A. M. regarding the said incident in the night of 15. 7. 199 1 and the case Crime No 272 of 1991 under Sections 147, 148, 149,302 and 201, I. P. C. was registered. A copy of the F. I. R. is annexed with the writ petition which we do not consider necessary to be reproduced. Petitioner stated to have submitted an application before the Chief Minister of State for making investigation by C. B. C. I. D. or by C. B. I Mahabir Singh against whom the petitioner had contested the election on J. Ds ticket was elected and had become Minister in the B. J. P. Government of the State. There was some pressure exhorted by the either party. Various representations were said to have been made to the Chief Minister for making investigation by C. B. C. I. D. and he had also assured that proper investigation in the case would be conducted by CB C. I. D. The petitioner had filed a Writ petition with a prayer that the petitioner may not be arrested in the said case and the F. I. R. may be quashed. It is said that the investigation of the said case was transferred by orders of the Directors General of Police, U. P. to C. B. C. I. D. and sector officers C. B. C. I. D. had started investigation in the case Crime No 272 of 1991. ( 3 ) IT is said that the Chief Minister Sri Kalayan Singh by an order dated 17. 9. 1991 in collusion with Sri Mahabir Singh, State Minister of U. P. who belonged to B. J. P. issued orders on 17. 9. 1991 transferring the investigation of the said case from C. B. C. I. D. to civil police Bijnor. The said order has not been filed and the reference has already been quoted in the earlier paragraphs. ( 4 ) THE petitioner alleged that he is a political person. He has full information that if the civil police conduct the investigation, there are every changes of false implication of the petitioner in order to defame him due do the political rivalry. They said that the Chief Minister, U. P. intervened in the matter and reviewed the order of the director General of Police without perusing the record of the case of crime No 272 of 1991 or without obtaining report from C. B. C. I. D. passed illegal orders for re-transferring the investigation to civil police of Bijnor. It is said that no application under Sec. 173 (8), Cr. P. C. was moved by the prosecution for transferring the investigation of the case to some other agency. ( 5 ) A counter affidavit with an application has been filed by Narendra Pal Singh, already referred in the writ petition. It has been stated in the application and affidavit that the petitioner has already filed a W. P. No 20507 of 1991 Anwar Jamil v. State of U. P. in this Court with the same relief, which has been claimed in this writ petition also Since in the earlier writ petition, referred above, Narendra Pal Singh was arrayed as opposite party No. 3 and on contest on stay order was granted to the petitioner in the earlier writ petition. Now the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner without impleading Narendra Pal Singh, as opposite party and petitioner has obtained the ex-parte stay order from this Honble Court. Now the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner without impleading Narendra Pal Singh, as opposite party and petitioner has obtained the ex-parte stay order from this Honble Court. A perusal of the order-sheet of the case shows that the time bound interim stay order granted by this Honble Court had expired and on the application on beha. If of the petitioner, the interim order was extended from time to time. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the various pleas raised in the writ petition and cited case laws State of Bihar v. A. C. Saldana, State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Sampat Lal and Ors. , in support of his submissions. ( 7 ) BEFORE entering into the merits of the arguments it would be necessary to examine the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for Narendra Pal Singh that the present writ petition by the petitioner is not maintainable. The learned counsel for Narendra Pal Singh submitted a decision reported in Anand Kumar Gupta v. State Of U. P. . It is submitted that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner is pending. The application for grant of stay was not allowed by the court in the earlier writ petition. The question which arises for consideration is whether petitioner can be permitted to file a second writ petition during the pendency of the first writ petition filed by him for same relief. ( 8 ) THE Division Bench, Supra, held that if a writ petition is pending in which the petitioner could have or ought to have sought for a relief and not claimed in the writ petition, he cannot be permitted to file another writ petition for the same cause of action and as such the second writ petition filed is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed in limine, as not-maintainable. ( 9 ) IT is not disputed that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner is still pending in which the stay claimed by the petitioner was refused. Certain new circumstances are stated in the present writ petition by the petitioner. It is submitted that new circumstances, which has arisen just before of the present writ petition, confers a fresh cause of action and another writ petition would be maintainable. This argument of the learned counsel is misconceived. Certain new circumstances are stated in the present writ petition by the petitioner. It is submitted that new circumstances, which has arisen just before of the present writ petition, confers a fresh cause of action and another writ petition would be maintainable. This argument of the learned counsel is misconceived. The Division Bench judgment of this Court, supra, is complete answer to this argument also The petitioner, if he was aggrieved by certain new facts as alleged by him, there was no hurdle for the petitioner in seeking amendment in the writ petition and the prayer in the writ petition pending could have been amended. This petitioner has not done so In view of the facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to file writ petitions one after the other during the pendency of the earlier writ petition on one or the other grounds alleging to be a subsequent fresh cause of action arose entitling him to file fresh writ petition. There was no difficult for the petitioner in seeking an amendment in the writ petition and in its prayer for the relief. The petitioner has not done so It appears that the petitioner after having failed to obtain a stay order in the earlier pending writ petition, which was opposed by Narendra Pal Singh, who was a party in the said writ petition, considered it convenient to obtain a stay order without impleading him in the writ petition to obtain in interim order. This is neither fair nor proper. The petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands. The petitioner appears to have played tricks and succeeded in obtaining interim order and got the interim order which was time bound extended from time to time without filing any rejoinder affidavit. Thus, we are of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed summarily on the ground of maintainability, as well as, on the ground that the petitioner has not approached this Hon ble Court with clean hands. ( 10 ) THE writ petition is dismissed summarily. The interim order dated 11. 10. 1991 extended from time to time stands vacated. Petition dismissed. .