IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10475 of 2009 Between: R. Vinod Kumar S/o. R. Swamy, F.P.Shop No.416, R/o. Tulasi Nagar, 5/12, Tulasi Nagar, H.M.T. Hills, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Special Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Assistant Supply Officer, Cirlce-II, Bala Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents suspending the authorization of the petitioner's F.P.Shop No.416, Deenabandu Colony, Jagthgirigutta, Ranga Reddy District by his Proceedings No.E/4069/2008 dated 29-10-2008 as null and void. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.H.V.R.R.SWAMY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 10475 of 2009 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 29.10.2008 passed by respondent No.1. A perusal of the record shows that questioning the very same order the petitioner filed W.P.No.401 of 2009. This Court by order dated 19.10.2009, while declining to set aside the said order, directed the respondents to conduct enquiry and complete the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The said order has become final. Therefore, it is not permissible for the petitioner to file a second writ petition to question the very same order. Sri V.H.V.R.R. Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the direction contained in the order filed in the previous writ petition was not complied with, the present writ petition is filed. This submission is wholly meritless because if the petitioner felt aggrieved by non-compliance with the direction contained in the order passed in W.P.No.401 of 2009, he is entitled to avail appropriate remedy to seek enforcement of the said order. But, under the pretext of non-compliance with the order, the petitioner is not entitled to file a second writ petition to question the very same order, which was the subject matter of the previous writ petition. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.13455 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. 9th June, 2009 lmv/es THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10475 of 2009 9th June, 2009 lmv/es