Order A.K. Ganguly J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17-11-1989 issued by respondent No. 3 communicated by respondent No. 4 vide Memo No. 2376 dated 30-11-1989. By the said order the services of the petitioner was terminated. 3. Without going into the merit of this case this Court hold that the instant writ petitions net maintainable for the reasons noted below : In para 26 of the writ petition it has been stated that against the said impugned order of termination of the service of the petitioner previously another writ petition was filed which was numbered as CWJC No. 1068 of 1992, and the said writ petition dismissed as withdrawn. Division Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the following order :- “Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Corporation. After some argument learned Counsel for the petitioner leeks permissions to withdraw this application. Accordingly the application is permitted to be withdrawn at this stage.” 4. From a perusal of the aforesaid order of the Division Bench it appears that the petitioner was liven permission to withdraw the writ petition, and the learned Judges of the Division Bench did not live the petitioner any leave to move afresh as such the present writ petition which has been filed for the same cause of action without such leave is not maintainable in view of provisions contained in Order XXIII of the Civil Procedure Code. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Judges of the Division Bench passed the said order containing expression that the application is permitted to be withdrawn at this stale. Relying on the said expression at this stage learned Counsel tries to argue that it would mean permission impliedly to come at later stage. This Court is unable to appreciate the said argument. This Court is of the view that when the Court passes final order the expression at this stage does not have any significance. 6. It is not in dispute that the order dated 31st August, 1992 is a final order, and the said 'expression “at this stage" could have some significance when an order is passed on an interlocutory application. This Court is of the view that when the Court passes final order the expression at this stage does not have any significance. 6. It is not in dispute that the order dated 31st August, 1992 is a final order, and the said 'expression “at this stage" could have some significance when an order is passed on an interlocutory application. If the prayer made in the interlocutory application is refused at a particular stage of the proceeding that may not, in a given case preclude the petitioner from approaching the Court with a prayer for interlocutory order in the same proceeding at a later stage on disclosure of now facts. It is well settled that the Court considerations the interim prayer may grant such prayer which was refused at an earliest stage of the proceeding but the said considerations do not apply when the proceeding comes to an end by a final order. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court is unable to appreciate by use of expression "at this stage" the learned Judges of the Division Bench had given the petitioner permission or leave to move this Hon'ble Court , later against the same cause of action by filing another writ petition. 8. The question whether principles of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply to a writ petition has been set at rest by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service v. S.T.A. Tribunal, Gwalior reported in AIR 1987 SC page 88. In para 9 of the said judgment the relevant observations are to the following effects :- "The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition tiled by him in the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India with out the permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that Article. On this point the decision in Daryoo's case (supra) is of no assistance. But we arc of the view that the principle underlying R. 1 of O. XXIII of the Code should be extended in the interest of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of resjudicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. 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 Art 226 of the Constitution once again. 9. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court, however, observed that the aforesaid bar will not be applicable in a case of habeas corpus proceeding or where persons concerned are seeking to enforce fundamental right Under Art 21 of the Constitution. This writ petition does not come under those categories. 10. In that view of the matter this Court holds that on the ratio of the case of Sarguja Transport (supra), the instant writ petition is not maintainable. Therefore this Court does not go into adjudication of the merits of this case as this writ petition is not maintainable on this preliminary ground as mentioned above. This writ petition is thus dismissed. Petition Dismissed.