13. The general principles on the basis of which the bar against entertaining successive writ petitions is founded has been succinctly explained in State of UP & Anr. Vs. Labh Chand9, in the following terms:- "20. When a Judge of Single Judge Bench of a High Court is required to entertain a second writ petition of a person on a matter, he cannot, as a matter of course, entertain such petition, if an earlier writ petition of the same person on the same matter had been dismissed already by another Single Judge Bench or a Division Bench of the same High Court, even if such dismissal was on the ground of laches or on the ground of non-availing of alternative remedy. Second writ petition cannot be so entertained not because the learned Single Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, but because entertaining of such a second writ petition would render the order of the same Court dismissing the earlier writ petition redundant and nugatory, although not reviewed by it in exercise of the recognised power. Besides, if a learned Single Judge could entertain a second writ petition of a person respecting a matter on which his first writ petition was dismissed in limine by another learned Single Judge or a Division Bench of the same Court, it would encourage an unsuccessful writ petition to go on filing writ petition after writ petition in the same matter in the same High Court, and have it brought up for consideration before one Judge and another. Such a thing, if is allowed to happen, it could result in giving full scope and encouragement to an unscrupulous litigant to abuse the process of the High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in that any order of any bench of such Court refusing to entertain a writ petition could be ignored by him with impunity and relief sought in the same matter by filing a fresh writ petition. This would only lead to introduction of disorder, confusion and chaos relating to exercise of writ jurisdiction by Judges of the High Court for there could be no finality for an order of the Court refusing to entertain a writ petition. It is why, the rule of judicial practice and procedure that a second writ petition shall not be entertained by the High Court on the subject matter respecting which the first writ petition of the same person was dismissed by the same Court even if the order of such dismissal was in limine, be it on the ground of laches or on the ground of non-exhaustion of alternative remedy, has come to the accepted and followed as salutary rule in exercise of writ jurisdiction of Courts." 14. The Supreme Court in Forward Construction Co. & Ors. Vs. Prabhat Mandal (Regd) Andheri & Ors.10 referring to Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC held that the order dismissing the first writ petition operates as res judicata between the parties and the person against whom the order has been passed has got no right to file a second petition on the same set of facts. We may refer to the following extract from the judgment:- "20. ......Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC provides that any matter which might and ought to have been made