S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. - (1.)By these petitions under Article 226 of the Contitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction under Article 226 of the Contitution of India calling for the records of the case leading to the issue of the impugned notice, passing of the impugned order and issuing of the impugned penalty notice and after going through the same and examining the question of legality thereof quash, cancel and set aside the impugned notice dated 30th March, 2015 (Exhibit C), impugned order dated 19th August, 2015 (Exhibit M) and impugned penalty notice dated 24th August, 2015 (Exhibit Q).

(b) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction under Article 226 of the Contitution of India, ordering and directing the Respondents to withdraw the impugned notice dated 30th March, 2015 (Exhibit C), impugned order dated 19th August, 2015 (Exhibit M) and impugned penalty notice dated 24th August, 2015 (Exhibit Q);"

(2.)Upon such petitions and on copies thereof being served, an affidavit in reply in each of these petitions has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which they have raised a preliminary issue to the maintainability of these petitions. The argument is that this very petitioner had filed a earlier petition being Writ Petition No. 2823 of 2015 on the same cause of action and claiming identical reliefs, as are reproduced above. That writ petition was heard for admission by this Court on two occasions and reliance is placed on an order passed in that writ petition and which is dated 21.12.2016. That order reads as under:-
"On 30th November, 2016 when this Petition was heard, the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that Petition should not be entertained by us in our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Contitution of India. This for the reason that the Petition contains incorrect statements.

2. In particular, attention was drawn to paragraph 4(b) thereof to the effect "The Petitioner did not have any property in India and as a nonresident, as the Petitioner has no source of income in India, the Petitioner has not filed any return of income in India",. This, the learned Additional Solicitor General states is not correct and places reliance upon an Assessment Order dated 30th July, 2004 which records statements on the Petitioner's behalf indicating that the Petitioner did have property in India during the period covered these Petitions.

(3.)On the above facts being pointed out, Mr. Mistri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner took time to take instructions from the Petitioner with regard to the correctness of the statement made by him in the Petition. The Petition was adjourned to 7th December, 2016 and thereafter on 7th December, 2016 at the instance of the Petitioner, to today.