IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16898 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.V. VIDYADHARAN, S/O KRISHNAN NEELAKANDAN, BINU BHAVAN, (CHERUVELIL), PANNIYALI, OMALLOOR, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCERRY. 4. GEOLOGIST, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, OMALLOOR. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 16898 OF 2008 J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th June 2008 J U D G M E N T On the allegation that the petitioner had quarried from a puramboke land he was issued Ext. P1 for realising the value and royalty along with fine. Ext. P4 is an appeal that was filed during the pendency of which, according to the petitioner, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated. Thereupon a writ petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court as W.P.(C) No. 12715/07. In that writ petition Ext. P5 order was passed directing the petitioner to move an application for stay before the 1st respondent before whom Ext. P4 appeal was pending. The appellate authority was ordered to pass order on the stay petition. Petitioner submits that in compliance with the said order, petitioner had moved Ext. P6 stay petition. It is stated that despite reminders, order has not been passed on the stay petition and that at the same time, recovery proceedings are again initiated by Exts. P8 and P9. It is in this background this writ petition has been filed. W.P.(C) No. 16898 OF 2008 -2- 2. If the facts stated by the petitioner are taken at its face value, what is disclosed is a case where the respondents may have disobeyed Ext. P5 order passed by this Court. If that be the case, the course open to the petitioner is not to file yet another writ petition, but to proceed against the concerned respondent for the alleged violation of Ext. P5. Therefore, the writ petition is not the remedy that is available. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-