IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2811 of 2009 Between: Y. Adam, S/o. Gorayaiah,O/o. Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity, Revenue Office, Podili, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Managing Director, AP TRANSCO, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, AP TRANSCO, Ongole. 3 The Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation Circle, AP TRANSCO, Kanigiri, Prakasam District. 4 Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Officer, Kanagiri, Prakasam District. .RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.S.V.INDIRA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in removing the petitioner from service with effect from June, 2001, without any notice and opportunity, as illegal and arbitrary. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that this writ petition is wholly misconceived because, questioning the order of his removal in the year 2001, the petitioner filed W.P. No.19328 of 2001 in this Court and the same is, admittedly, pending. The present writ petition is filed for the same relief, but on a fresh cause of action, namely; that letter dated 15-12-2005 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle to the Chief General Manager, HRD, APSPDCL, Tirupathi, shows that the petitioner is continued on paper as watch and ward at Markapur Division, while he was not actually permitted to attend to the duties and paid salary. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation Division, it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner is having only a 10th class qualification; that his request for appointing him as watchman on regular basis cannot be considered due to ban imposed by Act 2 of 1994 and that his continuance as watchman contract labour is also not possible. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the respondents have not referred to and denied the petitioner’s allegation that he is being continued as watch and ward on paper. In my considered view, the relief claimed in the present writ petition by the petitioner is exactly the same as claimed in W.P.No.19328 of 2001. The learned counsel for the petitioner conceded this position. The petitioner cannot, therefore, maintain a second writ petition for the same relief. If, during the pendency of the said writ petition, fresh events have occurred, the petitioner is always free to raise additional grounds in the writ petition and seek appropriate relief therein. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise additional grounds and claim appropriate relief in the pending writ petition. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petition, WPMP No.3605 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd March, 2009 vrn