IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27579 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------ THE STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NELLIPPALLY P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN – 671 001 BY ADV. SRI. AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM, PIN – 671001. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN – 689695. 3. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOLLAM. PIN - 691001. 4. MUHAMMED HUSSAIN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU KUMPICKAL, PATHIRICKAL P.O., PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN – 689695. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 27579 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Government owned Corporation, which is aggrieved by Ext.P2 Award passed by the Labour Court, Kollam. It is stated that the petitioner had already filed a writ petition, WP(C) 19717/2009, before this court challenging the Award. It is conceded that the said writ petition stands already admitted and is pending disposal. Grievance of the petitioner at present is that revenue recovery steps has been initiated for realizing amounts covered under the Award on issuing Exts.P3 and P4 notices. Hence the petitioner is seeking direction to keep in abeyance recovery steps till the disposal of WP(C)19717/2009. 2. I am of the opinion that filing of this Writ Petition is a sheer abuse of the process of this Court. Considering pendency of another Writ Petition, in which validity of Ext.P2 Award is under challenge, the approach made by the petitioner in filing this writ petition, questioning the revenue recovery steps, is highly improper. The petitioner, if so advised, could have sought for appropriate relief in the pending writ petition. Filing of a fresh Writ Petition without resorting such remedy is highly condemnable. It is a matter in which this Court ought to have imposed heavy cost. But considering the fact that the petitioner is a 2 WP(C) No. 27579/2010 Corporation owned by the Government I am restraining from such a course. 3. Under the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to seek appropriate relief in the pending Writ Petition, in which Ext.P2 Award is under challenge. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc