THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2762 of 2008 Date: 12.02.2008 Between: Smt. Govindu Sakunthala … Petitioner AND Amadalavalasa Municipality … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2762 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in attempting to lay road over property comprised in Survey No.17/14 of Krishnapuram Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, covered by Patta No.761 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner averred that at the time of seeking approval for construction of her house, she has surrendered the land required for laying 12 feet road on southern side of her house and that after excluding the said extent, she is left with the land of 20 feet from East to West and 6 feet from North to South. The petitioner stated that over and above the land surrendered by her, the respondent is seeking to lay a cement concrete road by entrusting the work to a contractor; that she got issued a legal notice, dated 11.08.2007 to the respondent and the contractor and as they have not refrained from laying the road, she filed O.S.No.2 of 2008 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondent and the contractor from laying road and interfering with her property. The petitioner further stated that she filed I.A.No.15 of 2008 for grant of an ex parte interim injunction and that the same is posted to 15.02.2008 for counter of the defendants. Heard Sri Shashidharan Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Beena, learned counsel representing Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. As noted hereinabove, the petitioner has already approached a competent civil Court for appropriate relief against the respondent. Having failed to get an order of ex parte interim injunction, she filed the present writ petition. The law is well settled that a person cannot avail parallel remedies in respect of the same subject matter. This Court cannot be approached for a stopgap purpose pending adjudication of the dispute by the civil Court in the application filed by her for injunction against the respondent. Having rightly invoked a remedy before a competent Court of law, the petitioner is required to pursue the said remedy to its logical conclusion. The present writ petition is wholly misconceived and the same is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.3551 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th FEBRUARY, 2008 kvni