IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 894 of 2009 Between: Hussain Khan S/o.Late Rahman Khan R/o.H.No.2-4-630, 631, Sundernagar,Kachiguda,Hyderabad, AP ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The STate of AP., through its Secretary for Housing Municipal Administration and Urban Developmetn (A2) Dept Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Chief Egineer, (Now M.D./General Manager) Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Hyderabad 3 The Collector,Hyderabad district, Nampally Station Road Hyderabad 4 Kalyan Nagar Co-operative Housing Society, rep.by its Secretary at 10-1-635, Chintal Basti,Khairatabad,Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue any appropriate writ order or direction particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari and the impugned latter No.GM(E)/O&M Div.6/Legal.99/1727 dated 18.5.99 issued by the respondent No.2 may be declared null and void and be quashed and consequently the respondent No.1 may be directed to comply with the direction of this Hon`ble court in order dated 5.10.1993 in WP.No.11547 of 1988 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MOHD. GHULAM HUSSAIN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The present writ petitioner earlier filed W.P. No.21972 of 2006 with the following prayer: “Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring the inaction of respondent No.1 to comply with the direction of this Hon’ble Court in order dated 5.10.1993 in W.P. No.11547 of 1988 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently the 1st respondent may be directed to forthwith comply with the direction mentioned above in the interest of justice.” A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 17.12.2007, dismissed that writ petition. Challenging that order, the petitioner preferred W.A. No. 6 of 2008, and a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal confirming the order passed by the learned single Judge. Again, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the very same relief which was denied, and tried to distinguish the relief sought for by him in that case with the present writ petition. This Court is unable to agree to such a contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The relief claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition is the very same relief, which he claimed in W.P. No. 21972 of 2006, which was refused, and the writ appeal in W.A. No.6 of 2008 filed against the said order, was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. The petitioner, having failed to get any relief in the earlier writ petition, now cannot be permitted to file another writ petition, claiming the very same relief, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, I see no reasons to entertain this writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 20th March, 2009 bcj