THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.8262 of 2009 Dated 13th July, 2011 Between: Md.Mahamood …Petitioner And The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Adilabad, Adilabad District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C.Rajashekar Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 4: Spl.Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: GP for R & B The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in threatening the petitioner to vacate the STD Booth situated at Bhoraj Integrated Check Post, Adilabad as illegal and arbitrary. On 23.06.2011, when this writ petition came up for hearing, it has come out that the petitioner has earlier filed W.P.No.15290 of 2006 for the same relief as claimed in this writ petition and that the said writ petition was dismissed for default on 26.11.2008. Since the said fact has not been mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, the case was adjourned to enable the petitioner and his counsel to explain the reasons for non-disclosure of the said fact. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed his personal affidavit on 24.06.2011. As the petitioner failed to file his affidavit, the case was adjourned on 27.06.2011. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the case was adjourned with the direction to the petitioner to appear in-person, as this Court has noticed some variation between the purported signature of the petitioner on his affidavit, dated 01.07.2011, and the affidavit, which was originally filed in the writ petition. Today, at the hearing, the petitioner is personally present and stated that signatures on both these affidavits are of him and that he explained the reason for variation in these signatures by stating that he has changed the style of signing after filing of the writ petition. It is stated in the affidavit that due to ignorance, the fact of filing of earlier writ petition and its dismissal was not referred to in the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner also took a similar stand. Even though this Court is of the opinion that there is serious default on the part of the petitioner and also of his counsel, who appeared in both the cases, in not disclosing the dismissal of the earlier writ petition, taking a lenient view, further action is dropped. Since the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed for default and no application for its restoration was filed, as a result of which, the said order has become final, this writ petition is in the teeth of the earlier order and consequently, the same is not maintainable. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th July, 2011 VGB