( 1 ) THESE petitions are filed by Vittal Janardhan Jadhav and two others seeking for various reliefs. ( 2 ) FACTS in brief are as under: respondents authorities conducted search and seizures under Section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act for short) of the assesses, namely, Vithal Janarhan Jadhav, Vishwas @ Vijay Vasant Deshmukh and Vinayak Villas Ghodke on 16. 6. 1999 at Hubli. Search and seizures action was commenced and concluded on 16. 6. 1999. As a result of search and seizures actions, a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs was seized from the said three persons. Notice under Section 158bc of the Act was issued and served on the assessees. Returns of Income Tax in Form No. 2b declaring their undisclosed income were filed for the block period from 1. 4. 1989 to 16. 6. 199. Petitioners and others claimed the cash seized as belonging to them. They filed writ petitions in this Court in WP Nos. 2358 to 2377 of 2000. This Court disposed of the said petition and directed the authorities to complete the proceedings initiated under Chapter XIVB of the Act within six months. Thereafter notices have been issued and petitioners entered appearance and proceedings were completed. Block assessment orders subsequently have been challenged before the Commissioner of Income tax and they were rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax. These orders are challenged in these writ petitions. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT have entered appearance through their standing counsel ( 4 ) HEARD Sri Manoj D Pukale, learned counsel for the petitioners. He took me through the proceedings to contend that the proceedings initiated were contrary to Section 132 of the Act. According to him, seizure of cash is not proper. He also finds fault with the proceedings. He took me through the proceedings to contend that injustice is meted out to his clients. He says that the cash ought to have been given to the petitioners. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order. ( 5 ) IN the light of the arguments addressed by both the sides, I have carefully perused the material on record. ( 6 ) IT is seen from the material on record that on 16. 6. 1999 police personnel of Hubli found these petitioners with bags and suitcases containing Rs. 20,07,350. 00. They were taken to police station. ( 5 ) IN the light of the arguments addressed by both the sides, I have carefully perused the material on record. ( 6 ) IT is seen from the material on record that on 16. 6. 1999 police personnel of Hubli found these petitioners with bags and suitcases containing Rs. 20,07,350. 00. They were taken to police station. Information was passed on to the Deputy Director of Income Tax, Hubli. These three persons revealed that the said cash belong to a group of Raju Patadia of Hubli. An Inspector was deputed by the Income Tax Department. Enquiries were held and the cash was seized. In the enquiry, petitioners stated that the cash does not belong to them and they have nothing to do with the said cash. The Department found Rs. 11,55,850. 00 from Vinayak Vilas Ghodke, Rs. 4,27,500. 00 from Vital Janardhan Jadhav and Rs. 4,24,200. 00 from Vishwas @ Vijay Vasant Deshmuk. Cash seized from Vinayak Vilas Ghodke was Rs. 11,53,000. 00, from Vthal Janardhan Jadhav Rs. 4,25,000. 00 and from Vishwas @ Vijay Vasan Deshmukh Rs. 4,22,000. 00. ( 7 ) ASSESSMENT proceedings were concluded. Writ Petitions were also filed in this Court by the Petitions were also filed in this Court by the petitioners. Thereafter, revisions were filed and they were rejected. Before the revisional authority. it was contended that Section 158bc was applicable only where any search has been conducted under Section 132 of the Act. Revisional Authority has noticed that the Deputy Director of Income Tax went with authorisation to search the petitioners and seized cash from them. Revisional authority has also noticed that the issuing of notice under Section 158bc and passing of the order under Section 143 (3) of the Act is proper and lega. ( 8 ) PETITIONERS learned counsel placed before me his arguments with regard to the procedure me his arguments with regard to the procedure conducted by the respondents. He also questions the statement recorded and the conduct of the personnel vis--vis the Income Tax Department. According to the learned counsel, they were taken to custody from the police and they were to police station. Learned counsel also attacks the authorisation of warrant. In the light of arguments, let me see as to whether a case has been made out before me or not. According to the learned counsel, they were taken to custody from the police and they were to police station. Learned counsel also attacks the authorisation of warrant. In the light of arguments, let me see as to whether a case has been made out before me or not. ( 9 ) IT is noticed at this that the petitioner on an earlier occasion moved this court in Writ Petition Nos. 2358 to 2377 of 2000. In this proceeding, it is seen that these petitioners question the legality or otherwise of the proceedings initiated by the respondents authorities under Section 132 (1) of the Act. They also sought for other reliefs including quashing of notice issued by the respondent authorities under Section 158bc of the Act. From the order of this Court it is seen that the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are only interested in getting back the amount seized by the Income Tax authorities after the authorities completing the proceeding under Chapter XIVB of the Act. No arguments were advanced with regard to these questions in the earlier proceedings. In the earlier petition this court in para-6 has rule as under:"in that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the petitioners case before this Court, these writ petitions are disposed off. A direction is issued to the first respondent-authority to complete the proceeding under Chapter XIVB of the Act pursuant to his notice dated 23. 8. 1999 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this courts order, provided the petitioners cooperate with the Department to complete the proceedings. " ( 10 ) IN the light of the earlier order of this Court and in the light of the petitioners having not obtained any liberty to urge their contentions in subsequent proceedings, earlier order comes in the way of the present petitioners in challenging the earlier proceedings in this petition. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to re-appreciate the earlier arguments which was not pressed or which were advanced in an earlier petition. In the second petition, it is not open to the petitioner to urge the contents which have not been raised in the earlier proceedings. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to re-appreciate the earlier arguments which was not pressed or which were advanced in an earlier petition. In the second petition, it is not open to the petitioner to urge the contents which have not been raised in the earlier proceedings. In the circumstances, I do not find any error to interfere in the case on hand. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners also states that it may be a mistake in the earlier proceedings. In this connection, it is to be noticed that the Supreme Court in UPTRON INDIA LIMITED v. SHAMMI BHAN AND ANOTHER, AIR 1998 SC 1681 has ruled in para 23 that a wrong concession on a question of law made by a counsel is not binding on his client, which would mean that a concession made on facts in binding on his client/s. I must also notice the judgment of the Surpeme Court in SARGUJA TRANSPORT SERVICE v. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, GWALIOR AND OTHERS. The Supreme Court notices that the petitioner who withdraws the petition cannot filed a fresh petition in respect of the same cause of action. In the case on hand, what is being done is only to revive the given-up contentions in the earlier proceedings. In the circumstances, notwithstanding the strenuous arguments on the part of the petitioners counsel, I am unable to appreciate them in the light of the earlier judgment of this Court. No acceptable arguments are placed before me. ( 13 ) IN the circumstances, I have no option but to reject the petitions and confirm the orders passed by th revisional authority based on facts. Ordered accordingly. No costs. --- *** --- .