HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24943 of 2011 Date:06.09.2011 Between: Smt P.Padmavathi ..... Petitioner AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Reptd by its Commissioner, Hyderabad. .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Janardhan Reddy Ponaka Counsel for Respondent: ------ The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent in considering the petitioner’s representation, dated 30.07.2011, as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard Sri Janardhan Reddy Ponaka, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner claims to have been allotted shop No.16 in the Abids Municipal Complex, Hyderabad, by the respondent. On the ground that huge arrears mounted up, the said shop was closed by the officials of the respondent-the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) with the police aid on 20.03.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed O.S.No.3525 of 2010 in the Court of the learned IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short ‘the civil Court’) for the relief of mandatory direction to the respondent-Corporation to reopen the said shop. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the civil Court has granted an order of status quo on 07.10.2010, which was subsequently vacated. The petitioner claimed to have made a representation to the respondent dated 30.07.2011, with a request to reopen the said shop by receiving a sum of Rs.3,64,320/- in instalments. As the said representation is not disposed of, the present Writ Petition is filed. In my considered opinion, having already invoked the jurisdiction of the civil Court by filing a civil suit, the petitioner is not entitled to approach this Court by availing a parallel remedy. If the interim order granted by the civil Court in the first instance and its vacation at a later stage has affected the interests of the petitioner, she is expected to avail further remedies against those orders. A litigant cannot be permitted to approach different fora in respect of the same subject matter on his/her failing to get the relief before one forum. Such approach would lead to encouraging multiplicity of proceedings. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue her further remedies in respect of the pending proceedings in O.S.No.3525 of 2010 in the Court of the learned IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.30671 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 06th September, 2011 DR