Judgment :- The petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for quo warranto or direction to the first respondent to show on what authority the 2nd respondent can hold the post of the Director of the Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai. 2. The short matrix of the case of the petitioner is set out in nutshell hereunder:- (a) He is an International Scientist and Consultant Biomedical Engineer. He did his B.Tech, M.S and Phd., Degrees and served as Research Affairs Secretary of student Union for three year and also served as member of IIT Senate Sub-Committees- Board of Academic Research and Library Advisory Committee. He received Post Doctoral Research Fellowship from Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA and the prestigious Inoue Foundation for Science International Fellowship, Japan. He served as visiting research Professor at Ehime University Medical School, Japan. He has published more than 50 research papers in national and international journals and conferences. After serving in abroad, he had served as Executive committee member of the IIT, Madras Alumni Association for three years. He hails from a family of freedom fighters and his grandfather was a prominent leader of Indian National Congress. (b) As a citizen of India and an academically highly qualified professional interested in the social and academic activities and an alumnus of IIT, Madras he has the locus standi to file this writ petition as a public interest litigation. He filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) W.P. (Civil) No.558 of 2007 before the Honble Apex Court. On 210. 2007, the Honble Chief Justice of India in the first Bench orally directed him to approach the High Court, Madras for the remedy accordingly the writ petition filed before the Honble Apex Court was withdrawn. (c) The IIT is an institution started by the Act of Parliament called the " Technology Act 59 of 1961". It is run with the 100% taxpayers money provided by the Central Government. The second respondent was appointed as Director of IIT, Madras on 212. 2001 . His five years term of office ended on 212. 2006. Instead of stepping down from the office and handing over the charge to the senior most Professors, he continued in his office till 30th June 2007 with the connivance of 3rd and 4th respondents and without any orders from the first respondent. The 4th respondent by a Circular dated 2. His five years term of office ended on 212. 2006. Instead of stepping down from the office and handing over the charge to the senior most Professors, he continued in his office till 30th June 2007 with the connivance of 3rd and 4th respondents and without any orders from the first respondent. The 4th respondent by a Circular dated 2. 2007 extended the period of Director for six months till 30.6.2007. The 4th respondent who was a junior officer working under the second respondent had no authority to issue the said order. As per the Act only the council with the prior approval of the Visitor can renew the term of office of the Director. (d) On 6. 2007, the selection committee constituted by the IIT Council held an interview at New Delhi for the post of Director of IIT, Madras. The second respondent attended the interview for the said post. While so, The Hindu in its news paper on 7. 2007 reported that the 2nd respondent was re-appointed one more term for a period of five years. The term "re-appointment" did not find any place in the Act or Statutes of IIT. The Minister for Human Resources Development in his capacity as the Chairman of the IIT Council had unilaterally taken a decision and re-appointed the second respondent. This is in clear violation of the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act, which reads that the Director of each institute shall be appointed by the Council with the prior approval of the Visitor. There are many violations in the order of re-appointment of the second respondent and he should not be allowed to continue even a single day in the office as Director of IIT Madras and a new person should be appointed immediately. (e) Ever since the 2nd respondent took over as the Director, the administration of the Institute has gone from bad to worse. No rules, regulations or administrative procedures were followed. Especially in the faculty appointments, the second respondent involve in open violations of the High Court and Supreme Court orders. Thus, on several grounds the appointment of the second respondent as Director of IIT, Madras was questioned before this Court. 3. Counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the first respondent wherein the following facts have been set out. Especially in the faculty appointments, the second respondent involve in open violations of the High Court and Supreme Court orders. Thus, on several grounds the appointment of the second respondent as Director of IIT, Madras was questioned before this Court. 3. Counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the first respondent wherein the following facts have been set out. (a) The writ petition filed by the petitioner before the Honble Apex Court was dismissed without giving any leave to file writ petition before this Court and hence the present writ petition is not maintainable. There is no fresh cause of action as the averments are similar to what were averred before the Supreme Court of India and as such the writ petition is not maintainable. Professor. M.S.Ananth, the second respondent herein, was appointed as Director, IIT Madras for a period of five years with effect from 212. 2001. Accordingly, his five year term expired on 212. 2006. However, as per Statute 15(3) of IIT Madras read with Sl.No.2 of Schedule A (Contract of Service) Council may appoint an eminent person as Director on contract for a period not exceeding five years, with a provision for renewal for further periods provided that every such appointment and terms there of shall be subject to the prior approval of the visitor. Provided further that if the appointee on conclusion of the period of service of five years is below 65 years of age, his service shall continue till the 30th June of the academic year in which the appointee concludes the said period of five years service or till he attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. Accordingly, Prof.M.S.Ananth continued to be Director upto 30.6.2007 as he had not completed 65 years of age as on 212. 2006. (b) The process for selection of Director of IIT, Madras was initiated by the Ministry in December 2006. A Search-cum-Selection Committee was constituted with the approval of the Honble Human Resource Minister and nominations for the post were solicited from eminent persons. The Committee recommended the name of Professor Ananth for reappointment as Director of IIT, Madras for another five years with effect from 7. 2007. Minister of Human Resource Development in his capacity as Chairman of Council of IITs approved the decision of the Search -Cum-Selection Committee. The Committee recommended the name of Professor Ananth for reappointment as Director of IIT, Madras for another five years with effect from 7. 2007. Minister of Human Resource Development in his capacity as Chairman of Council of IITs approved the decision of the Search -Cum-Selection Committee. Thereafter, after obtaining the approval of the Visitor to this recommendation, he was re-appointed for five years from 7. 2007 (c) The approval of the Visitor to the reappointment was granted on 26. 2007. There is no violations of the provisions of The Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 and the Statutes of IIT Madras. Thus, the counter affidavit sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Counter affidavit had been filed by the second respondent wherein the following facts have been set out. (a) One P.G.Samy @ Iraiyanar had filed a Public Interest Writ petition for issuance of a writ of Quo Warranto against him in W.P.No.25949 of 207 challenging his appointment as Director of Indian Institute of Technology Madras on similar grounds raised in this writ petition and the same has been dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28. 2007 observing that there is no element of public interest involved as the subject matter of the petition related to the service condition of the second respondent and therefore a writ of quo warranto would not lie. (b) the petitioner admittedly filed W.P.(Civil) No.558 of 2007 before the Honble Apex Court for identical relief based on identical facts. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the Honble Apex Court in its order dated 210. 2007. The petitioner did not obtain leave of the Honble Apex Court to file the above writ petition at the time of withdrawing the said writ petition . Hence the present writ petition which seeks identical relief is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata and is liable to be dismissed. (c) The issues raised in this writ petition are similar to those raised in W.P.No.12128 of 1998 which had been filed by one R.Anbarasu, challenging the appointment of Dr.R.Natarjaan, the predecessor of this respondent and the said writ petition was dismissed with cost by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 12. 2000. (c) The issues raised in this writ petition are similar to those raised in W.P.No.12128 of 1998 which had been filed by one R.Anbarasu, challenging the appointment of Dr.R.Natarjaan, the predecessor of this respondent and the said writ petition was dismissed with cost by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 12. 2000. (d) The allegations made in the affidavit are scurrilous in nature and had been made with an oblique motive and with a malafide intention to harass him . The writ petition had been filed under the guise of a Public Interest Litigation to settle a personal grievance as the petitioner had not been selected as a faculty in IIT Madras. The petitioner cannot be aggrieved in any manner whatsoever by the appointment of the second respondent or continuation in office and he has no locus standi to file the above writ petition in as much as the petitioner was never a candidate for the post of Director. The appointment had been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act or rules framed there under. Thus though an elaborate counter affidavit had been filed the nutshell of the same is that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition and that the second respondent had been appointed validly following the provisions of The Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 along with the statutes to regulate the functioning of the IIT, Madras The counter affidavit, thus seeks for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Counter affidavit had been filed by the 3rd respondent which is more or less the same as that of the first and second respondents. 6. The fourth respondent has filed the counter affidavit and the same is stated in nutshell hereunder:- She is neither a necessary nor a proper party for the adjudication of the writ petition and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed against this respondent in limine. She has been impleaded as a party respondent with a malafide intention to harass her. She has discharged her duties during her service as Registrar of the IIT Madras from 35. 2003 to 37. 2007 with absolute integrity and to the best of her ability. She has been impleaded as a party respondent with a malafide intention to harass her. She has discharged her duties during her service as Registrar of the IIT Madras from 35. 2003 to 37. 2007 with absolute integrity and to the best of her ability. The allegation that she issued an order extending the term of office of the 2nd respondent till 30.6.2007 and in order to reciprocate the gesture, the second respondent permitted her to register for the Ph.D programme is baselss and motivated. The office order dated 2. 2007 is not an order extending the service of the second respondent. On the contrary, the said office order was issued for administrative purposes in furtherance of an earlier office order dated 21. 2002 and in terms of the agreement of service entered into in 2001 between the 2nd and 3rd respondents by virtue of which the term of the 2nd respondent had automatically been extended till 30.6.2007. Thus the counter affidavit sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. A detailed reply affidavit had been filed by the petitioner for the counter affidavits of the respondents, which is stated as follows:- (a) It has been denied that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the dismissal of his writ petition before the Hon ble Apex Court. The Honble First Bench orally directed the petitioner to approach the High Court, Madras for the remedy and hence the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Any member of public or as a taxpayer entitled to question the appointment of high constitutional or statutory post. The Court has a right to investigate the matter and decide on the validity of the appointment notwithstanding that the petitioner is not a rival applicant to the office or he does not have a public interest. The writ petition had been originally filed as Public Interest Litigation and the second Bench of this Court had taken a decision to post the writ petition as a service matter and forwarded the same to the Honble Chief Justice. The Honble Chief Justice ordered the matter to be posted before the single Judge. The dismissal of the earlier writ petition is nothing to do with the present writ petition. .(b) The second respondent was appointed on contract as the Director of IIT, Madras for a period of five years on 212. The Honble Chief Justice ordered the matter to be posted before the single Judge. The dismissal of the earlier writ petition is nothing to do with the present writ petition. .(b) The second respondent was appointed on contract as the Director of IIT, Madras for a period of five years on 212. 2001 and the five years term ended on 212. 2006. Instead of stepping down from the office, the second respondent continued in his office till 30.6.2007 with the connivance of the 3rd and 4th respondents. The continuation of the second respondent beyond five years is illegal. The 4th respondent issued a circular extending the period of Director the second respondent for six months till 30.6.2007. She has no authority to issue such order. .(c) On 6. 2007 an interview was held at Delhi for the post of Director of IIT, Madras. Once the interview was called for to fill the post of Director, it implies that the terms of the second respondent was not renewed as per the Clause 15(3) of the Statute. But the second respondent attended the interview and got selected. On 7. 2007 the IIT Website and newspaper reported that the 2nd respondent was given one more term and he took charge with effect from 7. 2007. In order to justify the illegal continuation of the 2nd respondent, the first respondent reappointed him against the Act. The reappointment is against the provisions of the Act and Statutes. Thus an elaborate reply affidavit had been filed raising all grounds about the illegal occupation of the post by the second respondent. 8. I have heard Dr.E.Muralidharan, the petitioner in person; Mr.K.M.Venugopal, the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the first respondent; Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second and fourth respondents and Mr.R.Parthiban learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 9. The first and foremost submission made on behalf of the respondents was that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable since the petitioner had originally approached the Honble Apex Court by filing W.P.(Civil) No.558 of 2007 for identical relief based on identical facts and the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the Honble Apex Court by its order dated 210. 2007 and hence after the withdrawal of the writ petition filed before the Apex Court, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition before this Court which seeks identical relief. Thus, the primary question that has to be decided by this Court before traversing to the merits involved in the present writ petition is that whether the petitioner can maintain the writ petition in view of the the earlier writ petition filed before the Apex Court for the similar relief on similar set of facts, which has been dismissed as withdrawn by the Honble Apex Court without granting any leave to file the writ petition before this Court without granting any leave to file the writ petition before this Court. 10. Dr.E.Muralidharan, party in person submits that when the matter came up before the Honble Apex Court, the Honble Apex Court has orally directed the petitioner to approach the High Court, Madras for the relief that has been sought for by him before the Apex Court and hence he has withdrawn the writ petition before the Apex Court and an order has been passed by the Honble Apex Court dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn. Thus, according to the petitioner, party in person the filing of the present writ petition is not a bar and that the present writ petition is perfectly maintainable. 11. The petitioner party in person relied on a decision of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No.7008 of 2003 (Gurbaksh Singh Vs. The G.M.Western Railway and Others) and contended that the dismissal of the writ petition before the Honble Apex Court will not be a bar for filing the present writ petition. In the said decision, the judgment of the Honble Apex Court reported in AIR 1965 SC 1153 (Gulabchand Chhotala Parikh Vs. State of Gujarat) had been considered and the relevant passage thereon is extracted hereunder:- In the case of Gulabchand Chhotala Parikh vs state of Gujarat AIR 1965 SC 1153 it has been held by the Supreme Court that the decision given by the High Court on merits would operate as res judicata. The relevant and operative portion of the said judgment is reproduced below: "1. The relevant and operative portion of the said judgment is reproduced below: "1. If a petition under Article 226 is considered on the merits as a contested matter and is dismissed, the decision would continue to bind the parties unless it is otherwise modified or reversed by appeal or other appropriate proceedings permissible under the constitution. 2. It would not be open to a party to ignore the said judgment and move this court under Article 32 by an original petition made on the same facts and for obtaining the same or similar orders or writs. 3. It the petition under Article 226 in a High Court is dismissed not on the merits but because of the laches of the party applying for the writ or because it is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it, the dismissal of the writ petition would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32. 4. Such a dismissal may however constitute a bar to a subsequent application under Article 32 where and if the facts thus found by the High Court be themselves relevant even under Article 32/ 5. If a writ petition is dismissed in limine and an order is pronounced in the behalf, whether or not the dismissal would constitute a bar would depend on the nature of the order. If the order is on the merits, it would be a bar. 6. If the petition is dismissed in limine without a speaking order, such dismissal cannot be treated as creating a bar of res judicaa. 7. If the petition is dismissed as withdrawn, it cannot be a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32 because, in such a case, there had been no decision on the merits by the court"?. 12. The above passage of the Hon ble Apex Court would make it very clear that if the petition is dismissed as withdrawn, it cannot be a bar to subsequent petition under Article 32 because, in such a case, there had been no decision on the merits by the Court. But, here the petitioner withdrawn the writ petition before the Apex Court and thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court and hence the judgment relied on by the petitioner may not be relevant for the purpose of the case. 13. But, here the petitioner withdrawn the writ petition before the Apex Court and thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court and hence the judgment relied on by the petitioner may not be relevant for the purpose of the case. 13. The petitioner relied on a report in Times of India on the topic of Principles of Res Judicata, wherein the following passage is relied on by the petitioner. There is some confusion on the point whether res judicata applies when a writ petition is dismissed without the court making a speaking order. The apex Court has held in a case that this doctrine should not operate in such a case. In Hoshnak Singh Vs. India, the SC has ruled clearly that where a petition under Article 226 is dismissed in limine without a speaking order such a dismissal would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition. A high court can only review a decision where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found. But this power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the earlier decision was erroneous on merits. If a person goes first to a high court under Article 226 and his petition is dismissed on merits, he cannot approach the SC under Article 32 because of res judicata. He can reach the SC only by way of appeal. If, however, high court dismisses his or her writ petition not on merits, then res judicata does not apply and petitioner can move the SC. The said extracted passage also does not help the case of the petitioner. 14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent had relied on the decision reported in AIR 1987 SC 88 (Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and Others) wherein the Honble Apex Court has held that withdrawal of the writ petition under Article 226 without permission to institute a fresh writ petition in respect of the same cause of action is not maintainable. Relying on the said decision, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the petitioner having withdrawn the writ petition filed before the Apex Court and without leave of the Apex Court filed the present writ petition before this Court and the same is liable to be dismissed on the said sole ground . 15. Relying on the said decision, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the petitioner having withdrawn the writ petition filed before the Apex Court and without leave of the Apex Court filed the present writ petition before this Court and the same is liable to be dismissed on the said sole ground . 15. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the second respondent has also drawn my attention to the recent decision of the Honble First Bench of this Court made in W.P.No. 33935 of 2007 dated 9. 2008. The question that was posed by the Honble First Bench was that when the writ petition filed by the petitioner thereon under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was dismissed, whether the person concerned with a similar prayer can move before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Honble First Bench had opined that without leave of the Honble Apex Court, such writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be entertained. Para 3 of the said judgment is usefully extracted hereunder. 3. It is difficult for us to accept the said stand. If the Apex Court passes an order on similar grievance of a party and if such order is passed in a writ petition, then on the same cause of action if another writ petition is filed before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is difficult for the High Court to entertain the same, unless leave is granted by the Supreme Court. We cannot assume that the said leave has been granted in the absence of any indication to that effect in the order of the Honourable Apex Court. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner has mentioned about grant of leave in his affidavit, but, in our humble view, the order of the Honourable Supreme Court cannot be expanded merely on the basis of averment in an affidavit. 16. However, the petitioner party in person contended that the matter that has been considered by this Court is a matter where the Honble Apex Court dismissed the writ petition. However, in the case on hand, the writ petition filed before the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was dismissed as withdrawn and hence the said judgment may not be applicable to his case. However, in the case on hand, the writ petition filed before the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was dismissed as withdrawn and hence the said judgment may not be applicable to his case. I am unable to accept the said contention. The withdrawal of the writ petition filed before the Honble Apex Court without leave would bar the petitioner from approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. Considering the above facts and considering the above decisions, the irresistible conclusions that could be arrived are: .(a) The petitioner having moved a writ petition before the Honble Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India with a similar relief and with similar set of facts cannot maintain the writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without obtaining leave from the Honble Apex Court. (b) The contention of the petitioner that orally it has been observed by the Honble Apex Court that he can withdraw the writ petition and move the High Court, Madras cannot be accepted because it does not form part of the order of the Honble Apex Court. .(c) Unless leave is granted by the Honble Apex Court, it cannot be presumed that leave has been granted in the absence of any indication about the same in the order of the Honble Apex Court in W.P. (Civil) No.558 of 2007. .(d) The decision of the Honble First Bench of this Court made in W.P.No.33935 of 2007 amply makes the position very clear. The Honble First Bench of this Court in the said judgment had clearly stated that if the Apex Court passed an order on similar grievance of a party and if such an order has been passed in the writ petition then on the same cause of action a writ petition cannot be moved before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless leave is granted by the Apex Court. Leave cannot be presumed unless or otherwise there is some indication in the order of the Apex Court. Even it is mentioned in the affidavit that leave has been granted the order of the Honble Apex Court cannot be extended merely on the basis of an averment in the affidavit. Leave cannot be presumed unless or otherwise there is some indication in the order of the Apex Court. Even it is mentioned in the affidavit that leave has been granted the order of the Honble Apex Court cannot be extended merely on the basis of an averment in the affidavit. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition filed by the petitioner before this Court is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner moved the Honble Apex Court for a similar relief with similar set of facts and the same had been allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn and now the petitioner cannot once again re-agitate the matter before this Court especially, without obtaining leave from the Honble Apex Court. 18. In fine, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed. However, there is no order as to costs.