THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6557 OF 2010 Dated 23rd March, 2010 Between: Kesiraju Satya Anoop … Petitioner And The Principal Secretary to Government and two others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri B.Chandra Sekhar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Education Counsel for respondents 2 and 3: Sri A.Abhisek Reddy S.C. for JNA and FAU The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to attend classes of II-Year (4th semester) B.Tech commencing from 18.03.2010 conducted by respondent No.3- Institute. I have heard Sri B.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Abhishek Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner, a student of II-Year B-Tech was not permitted to appear in the 1st semester examination of II-Year B-Tech on the alleged ground that he had only 53.81% as against the minimum required 75% of attendance. Questioning the said action, the petitioner filed W.P. No.3525 of 2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 18.02.2010, wherein this Court permitted the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to respondent No.2 and further directed that if such a representation is filed, the same shall be disposed of by passing an appropriate order within a period of one week of receipt of the representation. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he made a representation on 22.02.2010, no order has been passed. In my considered opinion, the petitioner cannot be permitted to file successive writ petitions. In respect of the same grievance, this Court has already relegated the petitioner to respondent No.2 with the direction as noted above. Respondent No.2 is, therefore, bound by the direction given by this Court. If the said direction has not been complied with, the only appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to seek enforcement of the said direction by initiating appropriate proceedings in this Court. Instead of doing that, the petitioner has indulged in needless litigation of filing a fresh writ petition, which is not permissible in law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP Nos.8459, 8460 and 8461 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd March, 2010 vrn