JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter-alia, prayed for the following reliefs- i) “To direct respondent No.6 and his henchmangundas acting under the command of respondent No.6 not to go within the radius of 1000 meters around the petitioner as and when she visit Baddi so that the fundamental rights under Article 21 and under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India are protected with further directions to respondents No.1 to 5 to ensure the compliance of the said interim order. ii) To direct respondent Nos.1 to 5 to make an independent assessment of the threat perception of the petitioner from respondent No.6 and his henchmangundas and if the situation so requires, to make provision of security to the petitioner so that the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India are protected.” 2. When this case was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel appearing for private respondent No.6 has submitted that the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India praying for same and similar reliefs as are being sought by way of this writ petition, by way of Writ Petition (Criminal) No.308 of 2023, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-29 and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the request of the petitioner, but without any leave to approach either this Court or any other Court. 3. This fact could not be disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 4. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 88, has been pleased to hold that many a times when the Court is not finding favour with the contentions being raised by the petitioner, then, rather than taking an order of rejection a party choses to withdraw the petition, but until and unless the withdrawal is with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause, then such withdrawal does not confer any right to the party to file a fresh petition on the same cause. In para 9 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under- “The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India without 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 Daryao’s case (supra) is of no assistance. But, we are 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 res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. 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. While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relief on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without such permission. In the instant case the High Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable before it in respect of the same subject matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition. We, however, make it clear that whatever we have stated in this order may not be considered as being applicable to a writ petition involving the personal liberty of an individual in which the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or seeks to enforce the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution since such a case stand on a different footing altogether. We, however, leave this question open.” 5. We, however, leave this question open.” 5. In view of the said legal position, as the present writ petition is not maintainable, the same is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.