JUDGMENT : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. The present petition is filed by Balar Exports. The reliefs prayed for are in paragraph 42. Clauses (a) and (b) of the reliefs prayed for read as under: "(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the letter of cancellation dated 20.06.2006 (Annexure O to the petition) and letter of approval dated 25.02.2008 (Annexure X to the petition); (emphasis supplied) (b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to take all steps necessary and to permit the petitioner in so far as it permits establishment of a new Unit on Plot Nos.194 & 195 of Surat SEZ, Sachin, Tal. Choryasi, Dist. Surat and issue all necessary permissions for the said purpose." (emphasis supplied) 2. The learned advocate for the petitioner did make available a copy of Special Civil Application No. 6464 of 2008 which was filed by the same petitioner i.e., Balar Exports. The reliefs prayed for in that petition are in paragraph 33. Clauses (a) and (b) of the said paragraph read as under: "(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the letter of cancellation dated 20.06.2006 (Annexure H to the petition) and letter of approval dated 25.02.2008 (Annexure O to the petition); (b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to take all steps necessary and to permit the petitioner in so far as it permits establishment of a new Unit on Plot Nos.194 & 195 of Surat SEZ, Sachin, Tal. Choryasi, Dist. Surat and issue all necessary permissions for the said purpose." 3. Learned advocate Mr. A.M. Panchal appearing for respondent No.4 raised a preliminary objection saying that as the earlier petition being SCA No.6464 of 2008 was withdrawn by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the present petition is not maintainable before this Court and no discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be exercised in favour of the petitioner. 4. A.M. Panchal appearing for respondent No.4 raised a preliminary objection saying that as the earlier petition being SCA No.6464 of 2008 was withdrawn by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the present petition is not maintainable before this Court and no discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be exercised in favour of the petitioner. 4. The earlier petition being SCA No.6464 of 2008 was disposed of by this Court (Coram: C.K. Buch, J. as He then was) by order dated 22.4.2008. The said order reads as under: "After some deliberation, Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition especially when the independent committee has been appointed on account of the grievance expressed by number of plot holders in the relevant SEZ and committee is scrutinising the grievance of the plot holders and petitioner expects that something may turn in favour of the petitioner-company. The petitioner claims right over plot No.194 and 195 as referred to in the petition and the same has been allotted to a third party and that third party is asked to start its industrial unit. The letter produced by the petitioner appears to be a letter of approval and not a letter of allotment of plot No.194 and 195. The Court is not made aware that whether any formal allotment of the said plots has been made to that third party or not. So it will be open for the petitioner to approach the concerned authority so that the case of the petitioner can be considered simultaneously as expeditiously as possible along with the cases of other plot holders. If the petitioner is found entitled to any relief or advantage whatsoever, the committee would obviously recommend accordingly because each case is supposed to be evaluated individually and on the set of facts that may be placed before the Committee. With the above observations the present petition is ordered to be disposed of as withdrawn". 5. Learned advocate Mr. Panchal relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Gulammiya Husasinmiya Malek v. Union of India, reported in 2000 (2) GLH 545. The relevant part of the order reads as under: "8. ...... 9. ........................................... Thus, in view of this decision, nothing could have been done. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Panchal relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Gulammiya Husasinmiya Malek v. Union of India, reported in 2000 (2) GLH 545. The relevant part of the order reads as under: "8. ...... 9. ........................................... Thus, in view of this decision, nothing could have been done. However, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 9781/99 and realising that there is no substance in the petition, requested the Court to allow to withdraw that petition. On behalf of the petitioner a statement was made that he would like to avail remedy of review or representation for the purpose of change of birth date in service record, however, the Court has not reserved liberty to the petitioner to move the Tribunal for review or for making any representation. Division Bench of this Court on 9.12.99 permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition and disposed of the petition as withdrawn at the admission stage itself. Despite this, review application was filed and as the review application was not heard, this Court was again approached challenging the decision of the Tribunal." (emphasis supplied) 6. The Division Bench in paragraph 2 of the judgment observed as under: "2. Earlier petition was filed challenging the decision rendered by the Tribunal and the petition was withdrawn. Obviously, the said decision could not be challenged by the petitioner before this Court again. There was no order passed by the Tribunal which could have been challenged by the petitioner. In our opinion, this is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Therefore, we dismiss this petition and we confirm the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. 269/98 on 12.10.99. Notice is discharged. Copy of this order be forwarded to Tribunal forthwith." (emphasis supplied) 7. Learned advocate Mr. Panchal for respondent No.4 also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Patan Taluka Muman's Cattle Breeding and Milk Supplying v. State of Gujarat and others, reported in 1996 (2) GLH 752 . He relied upon the relevant observation made in paragraph 8 of the said judgment which is reproduced below for ready perusal as it incorporates the decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court which is directly applicable to the facts of the case of the petitioner: "8. He relied upon the relevant observation made in paragraph 8 of the said judgment which is reproduced below for ready perusal as it incorporates the decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court which is directly applicable to the facts of the case of the petitioner: "8. First of all, I consider it to be appropriate to decide the preliminary issue which has been raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents against the maintainability of this petition before this Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that one of the reliefs prayed for in the Special Civil Application No. 186 of 1981 was identical to the relief prayed in the present case. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is also in agreement that the Special Civil Application No. 186 of 1981 was filed by the petitioner who is also the petitioner in this Special Civil Application before this Court. The respondents were also the parties in the said petition which facts has also not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is also in agreement that the petition has been withdrawn without reserving any liberty to file the fresh petition. Earlier the Special Civil Application No. 186 of 1981 has been withdrawn on 12.5.81 and the order which has been passed by this Court is extracted as below: "Mr. A.J. Memon withdraws the petition with a view to making a representation to the State Government to devise a proper formula ensuring that dry cattle brought within the State of Gujarat for salvage purposes are not required to obtain export permit. The petition accordingly stands disposed of as withdrawn". The said writ petition has been withdrawn by the petitioner with a view to make representation to the State Government to devise a proper formulae ensuring the dry cattle brought within the State of Gujarat for salvage purpose are not required to obtain export permit. The Controversy raised in the aforesaid writ petition was identical to the controversy which has been raised in the present case. Here also, the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents to insist for obtaining the export permit for the dry cattle brought within the State of Gujarat for salvage purposes. The petitioner has not sought any liberty to file fresh petition also. Here also, the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents to insist for obtaining the export permit for the dry cattle brought within the State of Gujarat for salvage purposes. The petitioner has not sought any liberty to file fresh petition also. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, are not applicable to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as provided under Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Section 141 of the C.P.C. reads as under: "141. The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction." An explanation has been inserted to section 141 of the Code 1908 by Amendment Act, 1976, with effect from 1.2.77. The explanation provides that expression "proceedings" does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though the provisions as contained in Section 141 of the Code 1908 excludes the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India from the applicability of the procedure provided in the Code in regard to the suits to be followed as far as it can be made applicable, but this question is no more res integra. In the case of Sarguja Transport Service v. S.T.A. Tribunal, Gwalior, reported in AIR 1987 SC 88 , the Supreme Court has considered this aspect and held that the principal underlying Rule 1 of Order 23 of the Code, 1908, should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata, but on the ground of public policy. The Court has further held that it would 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 Article 226 of the Constitution once again. The Court has further held that it would 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 Article 226 of the Constitution once again. The Supreme Court has further held that the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in the High Court without permission to file a fresh petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action/relief in the writ petition when he withdraws it without such permission. If the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order 23 of the Code, 1908, is adopted in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution also, it would advance the cause of justice. The Supreme Court, in the case aforesaid further observed that it is a common knowledge that very often after writ petition is heard for some time, when the petitioner or his counsel find that the Court is not likely to pass order admitting the petition, request is made by the petitioner or his counsel to permit the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition without seeking permission to institute fresh writ petition. It has further been observed that the Court who is unwilling to admit the petition would not ordinarily grant liberty to file a fresh petition while it may just agree to permit the withdrawal of the petition. It is plain that once the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed in this Court is withdrawn by the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is precluded from filing the appeal against the order made and the reason is very obvious, he cannot be considered as a party aggrieved by the said order." 8. Learned advocate Mr. Panchal for respondent No.4 also invited attention of the Court to the observations made on the aspect of withdrawal of the petition and the withdrawal of the civil proceedings in paras 9 and 10 of the above referred to judgment. This Court is of the opinion that the same observations squarely apply to the facts of the present case also. 9. This Court is of the opinion that the same observations squarely apply to the facts of the present case also. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations, the Court finds that the present petition cannot be entertained in view of the fact that the earlier petition being SCA No.6464 of 2008 was withdrawn by the learned advocate for the petitioner unconditionally and the same is disposed of as withdrawn by the Court. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.