JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This Public Interest Litigation has been filed for a direction to hold an investigation by an independent agency such as C.B.I, in connection with Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No. 44 dated 20.12.2005. After completion of investigation into the matter, the Investigating Officer has submitted a report u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, which has been accepted by the Court. Earlier to this petition, another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 8394 of 2008 was filed by the Petitioner Society with the same prayer which was dismissed vide order dated 28.7.2008 by a speaking order which reads as under: Order dt. 28.7.2008. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner claiming to be a registered Society and further explaining that it's members are performing the work of public in nature and relief has been sought that the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 44/05 may be handed over for investigation to the C.B.I. The Petitioner has been filed by the Society claiming to be registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, but no registration certificate has been filed. An affidavit had been filed by Sri Ram Chandra Mohanty and in the affidavit, it has been stated by him that he is the Petitioner in this Case. Therefore, nothing is evident as to who is the Petitioner and who is the deponent. There is nothing on record to ascertain the bona fide on the Petitioner's Society or the deponent. In view of above, we are not inclined to entertain this PIL, which is accordingly dismissed. 2. If earlier writ petition filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed, we fail to understand as under what circumstances, successive writ petition is maintainable. In Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao Vs. K.Parasaran and others the Supreme Court has observed as under: No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and' public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. However, access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. 3. Similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in K.K. Modi Vs. K.N. Modi and Others, ; B. Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association and Others, : and Raj Kumar Soni and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, . 4. In Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another Vs. 3. Similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in K.K. Modi Vs. K.N. Modi and Others, ; B. Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association and Others, : and Raj Kumar Soni and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, . 4. In Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and another, the Supreme Court held that filing successive misconceived and frivolous applications for clarification, modification or for seeking a review of the order interferes with the purity of the administration of law and salutary and healthy practice. Such a litigant must be dealt with a very heavy hand. 5. In Sabia Khan and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others the Apex Court held that filing totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and such litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly. 6. In Abdul Rahman Vs. Prasony Bai and Another the Supreme Court held that wherever the Court comes to the conclusion-that the process of the Court is being abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further and refuse the party from pursuing the remedy in law. 7. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that filing this misconceive petition amounts to abuse of process of the Court. 8. In case the earlier petition was not found to be in order, or suffered from some technical defect, Petitioner cannot escape its liability. Petitioner had neither withdrawn the petition nor permission to file a fresh petition had been granted by the Court. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court In Re: Sanjiv Datta and Others observed as under: Some members of the profession have been adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice of the profession, as is evident from their absence when the matters are called out, the filing of incomplete and inaccurate pleadings, many times even illegible and without personal check and verification, the non-payment of Court fees and process fees, the failure to remove office objections, the failure to take steps to serve the parties, yet al. They do not realize the seriousness of these acts and omissions. They not only amount to the contempt of the Court but do positive dis-service to the litigants and create embarrassing situation in the Court leading to avoidable unpleasantness and delay in the disposal of matters. They do not realize the seriousness of these acts and omissions. They not only amount to the contempt of the Court but do positive dis-service to the litigants and create embarrassing situation in the Court leading to avoidable unpleasantness and delay in the disposal of matters. This augurs for the health of our judicial system. (Emphasis added). 10. In the aforesaid fact situation we are of the opinion that approaching the Court in such a manner amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. We are not inclined to entertain this petition and it is accordingly dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed