HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.26577 of 2011 Date: 22-9-2011 Between Vuyyuru Mohan Rao … Petitioner and The State of A.P., Rep. by its Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tilak Road, Hyderabad-1 and 5 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.26577 of 2011 Order: Heard Sri B.V.S.S.B.K.Ranjit, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent. 2. This writ petition is filed to declare the inaction of the respondents 1 to 5 in not evicting the 6th respondent from the shop room assessment No.19/9634, having Municipal bearing No.20-12-132, situated at Sri Kothamasu Subbaiah Sreshti Choultry, Santha Bazaar, Chirala, Prakasam district, without considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 06-6-2011, as illegal and consequently direct them to evict the 6th respondent from the said shop room and punish him for committing an offence of encroachment in accordance with law. 3. This writ petition is misconceived. Admittedly, the 6th respondent herein has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.421 of 2009 seeking a direction not to evict him from the shop bearing Municipal No.20-12-132, situated at Chirala belonging to Sri Kothamasu Subbaiah Sreshti Choultry and obtained an interim order in W.P.M.P.No.502 of 2009 dated 20-01-2009 that he shall not be evicted without following due process of law. 4. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he is a respondent to that writ petition. As per the pleadings, the petitioner is a tenant of the said shop and the 6th respondent illegally encroached with the collusion of the respondents 4 and 5 and occupied a part of the said shop. Therefore, he has filed a petition seeking to vacate the said order and the same is admittedly pending as on date. 5. From the material and the aforesaid pleadings, it is evident that the issue involved in this writ petition is substantially the same in W.P.No.421 of 2009. However, the petitioner in order to show a different cause of action, states that he made a representation on 06-6- 2011 to the respondents 1 to 5 to evict the 6th respondent from the premises as per the aforesaid interim orders. The petitioner, who is admittedly a party to the previous writ petition and who has filed a petition seeking to vacate the said interim orders, cannot pursue a separate writ petition in an identical cause of action. 6. Therefore, in my view, the writ petition is not entertainable and accordingly the same is dismissed, at the stage of admission. No costs. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 22nd September, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.26577 of 2011 22nd September, 2011. (Ak)