IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No.548 of 2009 ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1635/2009 Dated 02/02/2009 .................... APPELLANT/REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------- SHAMSUDEENKUNJU, AGED 47 YRS, VENGAYILPUTHENVEEDU, VENGA P.O, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM. BY MR.BIMAL K.NATH, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, KARUNAGAPALLY BRANCH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R), KUNNATHOOR TALUK, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM. BY MR. A. JAYASANKAR, SC, KSHB. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ Writ Appeal No.548 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of March, 2009. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1635/2009. He is aggrieved since his request for One Time Settlement before the first respondent-Kerala State Housing Board was not considered. 2. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasions also. It was observed in the judgment that the petitioner had not complied with the judgment and availed the benefit of One Time Settlement. Noting also that these facts had been suppressed in the writ petition, the same was dismissed. A review was also sought and that too was dismissed on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of record. W.A.No.548/2009 2 Be that as it may, the essential grievance is that Annexure A3 judgment has not so far been complied with by the Housing Board. Another writ petition is not the remedy. It is for the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate remedy in case he has a grievance on non-implementation of the direction issued by this Court. Without prejudice to such liberty, this writ appeal is dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE smp W.A.No.548/2009 3 KURIAN JOSEPH & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. W.A. No.548 OF 2009 J U D G M E N T 12.03.2009