THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM REV.W.P.M.P.No.10800 of 2005 in W.P.No.13876 of 2000 and W.P.No.25596 of 2005 30th April 2007 REV.W.P.M.P.No.10800 of 2005 in W.P.No.13876 of 2000 Between: P.A.Srinivasa Rao .. Petitioner and 1. Sri T.Gopala Rao and 3 others .. Respondents W.P.No.25596 of 2005 Between: P.A.Srinivasa Rao .. Petitioner and 1. The Prl.Secretary & Commissioner for Indl.Promotion, Industries & Commerce Dept., A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others. .. Respondents COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) In Review W.P.M.P.No.10800 of 2005 the petitioner, who appeared party-in-person, seeks to review the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.13876 of 2000 dated 11-10-2000 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner along with the contempt case in C.C.No.1157 of 2000. Similarly, the petitioner again appeared party-in-person and filed the other writ in W.P.No.25596 of 2005 inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus against respondents 1 to 4 not to proceed any further in conducting public auction in respect of A-7 shed admeasuring 4418.16 sq.mts., IE Sanath Nagar, as declared in the existing policy of the APIIC Limited till the disposal of the Review on merits and further direction to the said Corporation for alternative allotments. Heard the party-in-person on more than one occasion, who having regard to his age pursued the matter and presented the case through his daughter. Both of them appeared in person. Having regard to the age of the petitioner, this Court permitted him to argue in person. Heard also the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Sri R.V.Subbarao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 in the review application and in the writ petition. The claim of the petitioner in both these proceedings is, inter alia, one for allotment of a shed in Industrial Estate, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad, on the ground that he would be setting up a bicycle components and accessories concern in the name and style of M/s.Srinivasa Bicycle Components and Accessories. Accordingly, he made an application on 11-05-1966 and he was allotted Plot No.B-83 in Industrial Estate, Sanathnagar, on lease basis, subject to some conditions. However, the said plot was not to the liking of the petitioner and he sought for another alternative plot which was acceded to by order dated 02-08-1966 and he was allotted Plot No.B-52 and directed to make the necessary payments, which he did not comply and which has resulted the cancellation of the plot allotment by order dated 17-09-1966. Subsequently, there have been various representations on behalf of the petitioner. Even though the petitioner was asked to take possession of the said plot, he did not accept the same initially. Later, he executed a lease deed on 23-06-1969, and he was supposed to establish the industry within a period of one month from the date of allotment. However, the same was not again complied to or no concern has been set up, therefore, the order dated 26-06-1971 for cancellation, and the department has resumed the said plot and re-allotted to some other industry. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is to the effect that he should be provided with more appropriate allotment by cancelling the earlier orders of cancellation of their allotment made. This has lead to various proceedings and continued representations by the petitioner-in-person and the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ in W.P.No.24282 of 1992 which was disposed of on 18-04-2000 with certain directions and also subject to certain compliance of conditions which again was not adhered to by the petitioner and the amount as directed to be paid was not made and yet the petitioner went on pursuing, and ultimately, filed the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.13876 of 2000 and he also complained the violation of the orders passed in the earlier W.P.No.24282 of 1992 dated 18-04-2000 and filed the contempt in C.C.No.1157 of 2000. Both these cases were taken up by the earlier Bench and the same were dismissed as per orders dated 11-10-2000 by taking note of the petitioner’s total inaction, on his own part, in adhering to the terms and conditions, and trying to pursue more vigorously for a cause which does not warrant any indulgence. Ultimately, this Court had to make observations in the earlier order, against which the review has been filed and the same has been taken up together now, where it has been observed: “As already stated above, the petitioner has been litigating for decades and not because of any laches or error on the part of the respondents. On each of the occasions, it was the petitioner who had not complied with the conditions enumerated either in lease or the sale. The petitioner had faulted in performing his part of the obligation while the respondent-Government had always been accommodative to the petitioner and we have not seen any case in which such an indulgence was shown by the Government, as in spite of series of defaults committed by the petitioner, he was being accommodated with alternative plot because of his perseverance and endless representations. But, the petitioner is not satisfied with the same and is bent upon litigating. Absolutely, there is no semblance of right for the petitioner to complain and neither there is any rightful cause for filing the writ petition, nor there is any contempt committed by the respondents. Accordingly, this writ petition and the contempt case are dismissed with exemplary costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner within one month from today and to be shared by the four respondents in the contempt case @ Rs.2,500/- each.” From the above, it is quite apparent that the petitioner has not made out any such warranting circumstances to seek the indulgence from the Court or even to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In fact, prima-facie, there is no vested or enforceable right to seek such allotment, and more so, in view of the very staring circumstance in the present case where the petitioner himself is responsible for cancellation of the allotment which has been made in his favour on more than one occasion. The chequered events and the circumstances compelled this Court to make the aforesaid observations. It is these orders against which the petitioner seeks to review where he sought to pursue and canvass on the self- same grounds on which virtually the earlier writ was sought to be based on. We do not find any varying ground or different one from the one which has been filed in the earlier writ petition which has been referring to all the proceedings which will not have any bearing at all to seek a review. That apart, even on a reading of the review application or even from the submissions made by the petitioner-in-person, no error apparent on the face of the record has been made out to warrant the review. In W.P.No.25596 of 2005 the petitioner appearing in person virtually seeks the self-same relief as sought in the earlier W.P.No.13876 of 2000 and also in the aforesaid review application. The entire gamut of submissions, which has been made in person through his daughter on more one occasion, is only once again a repetition of the self-same allegations. We do not find any varying reason or ground in the fresh writ petition which has been filed now. In fact, the present writ petition virtually barred under the principles of res-judicata as it seeks the same relief on the same ground and for the self-same cause where he has unsuccessfully pursued the earlier writ on more than one occasion. Even the facts and circumstances of the case would stare against the petitioner, especially, in view of the non- compliance and non-adhering to the terms and conditions where the earlier allotments were made in his favour and which have been subsequently cancelled. Having regard to the rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the earlier more than one occasion and the finding as arrived at, we do not find any justification to entertain the present writ petition also. Neither there is any valid ground made out to warrant interference under extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor, even though the petitioner happened to appear in person and pursued the matter, would warrant any indulgence, more so, having regard to the findings which have been already arrived at and the observations made. We are again constrained to observe that except mere persuasion and trying to seek sympathy or indulgence merely because he appears in person, and though we have heard him on more than one occasion, we do not find any valid or sustainable plea or ground much less a point to entertain either of the applications as filed by him. On the earlier occasions, whenever the matter was heard, the petitioner went on filing set of papers one after the other. On perusal of which, we do not find any merit consideration since they do not reflect any further aspect or would go in support of the petitioner’s case nor would throw any light. Hence, we do not find any merits much less any justification in the entire claim as made in these two proceedings. Even though on the earlier occasion this Court has awarded exemplary costs to which one of us (BPR, J) was a party, however, by taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen and having regard to his age we refrain from awarding any further costs though the case warrants for further similar such terms, since the entire exercise by the petitioner is nothing but a square abuse of process of the Court. Hence, we dismiss the review application as well the writ petition. __________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J ________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J April 30th 2007 SKM