IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 4558 of 2010(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V.M.LATHEEF, S/O.MUHAMMED, PROPRIETOR, V.M.STEEL INDUSTRIES, 111/792, AGALI P.O., PALGHAT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALGHAT (THE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT T.B.CONTROL SOCIETY, PALGHAT). 2. THE DISTRICT T.B.CONTROL SOCIETY PALGHAT REPRESENTED BY T.B.OFFICER AND MEMBER SECRETARY, DISTRICT T.B.CONTROL SOCIETY, PALGHAT. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.4558/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATION. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 10.8.99. P3:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 7.1.2000. P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY the 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER BANK DTD. 23.10.2000. P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 26.3.02. P7:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP. 12269/02 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P8:- COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY THE PETITIONERS LAWYER DTD. 24.10.2008. P9:- COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 1.1.09. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 4558 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner seeks payment for furniture supplied by him to the 2nd respondent Society. Apart from the contention that the 2nd respondent Society no longer in existence and it has merged with the National Rural Health Mission the learned Government Pleader submits that, in view of Ext.P7 judgment, the petitioner cannot again file another writ petition for the same cause of action. 2. I have heard both sides. 3. Ext.P7 judgment reads thus: “The case of the petitioner as submitted by the counsel before me is that the first respondent to whom the petitioner has supplied furniture is not paying the cost thereof. The first respondent is the T.B. Control society. If the petitioner is not getting value of the furniture supplied, remedy lies elsewhere. Moreover the Government Pleader submits that there is some enquiry with regard to misappropriation on that count as well.” (underlining supplied) 4. The petitioner has no case that, the amount requested for is not the amount mentioned in Ext.P7. When W.P.(C)No. 4558 of 2010 -2- this court has relegated the petitioner to his remedy elsewhere, the petitioner cannot again file another writ petition for the same cause of action. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek the petitioner's remedy elsewhere if at this point of time the petitioner can still seek that remedy. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/