IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1176 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ PAZHANJINAGAR KOCHAR PAURASAMITHI, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY, K.PRASANTH. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA SRI.N.NADAKUMARAMENON (SR), SC FOR CORPN. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 1176 OF 2010 (V) ===================== Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an association, which is interested in getting a fish market at Edappazhanji Nagar shifted from the present location apparently for hygienic reasons. According to the petitioner, this Court has already issued such a direction in Ext.P1 judgment rendered in OP No.4701/1992, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in WA No.642/2001. Copies of the judgments are Exts.P1 and P2. It is stated that in violation of the judgments, the Corporation still retains the fish market and therefore appropriate directions are called for. 2. From the averments in the writ petition itself, it is obvious that complaining of disobedience of the judgments referred to above, Contempt of Court Case No.1244/2008 has been filed before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court is seized of the issue. It is also seen that affidavits have been filed by the parties in the aforesaid proceedings. 3. Now that in respect of the very same issue, judgments have been rendered by this Court and the Contempt of Court Case WPC 1176/10 :2 : filed is also pending, I see absolutely no reason to entertain the writ petition adding to multiplicity of proceedings. In view of this, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp