IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21767 of 2008(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- P.A. SIVARAMAN, S/O.A.V. AYYAPPANKUTTY, PALLATT HOUSE, KALIPPAMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.M.R.ANISON RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, UDHYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 011. 3. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. WPC No.21767 OF 2008 6. THE COCONUT DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KERA BHAVAN, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 011. R1 TO R3 BY ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL, SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR R4 TO R6 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & A.K. BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P (C) No. 21767 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008 Judgment H.L. Dattu, C. J: This is the second round of litigation by the very same petitioner who was before this Court on an earlier occasion in O.P.No.35851 of 2000. This Court by its order dated 2/8/2005 has disposed of the writ petition. The orders passed by this Court is as under: “ 4. In order to provide remunerative prices to the coconut growers, Government through nodal agency NAFED is procuring copra in the price support operations at Minimum Support Price if the process fall below Minimum Support Price. We are of the view, considering the various steps taken by the State Government as well as the Central Government, this Court is not justified in giving any direction either to the State Government or to the Central Government. We are sure that the State Government would take appropriate action to help the coconut farmers in the State of Kerala. With the above observations, this original petition is disposed of.” 2. The petitioner was not satisfied with the orders passed by this Court and therefore, had filed a Special Leave Petition before the apex Court. The Special Leave Petition came to be disposed of by the apex Court, holding that it may not WP(C).21767/08 2 be appropriate at that stage to interfere with the decision of the High Court. 3. Now once again the petitioner is before this Court for the very same relief that is sought for in O.P.No.35851 of 2000, disposed of 2nd of August 2005. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the respondents are not taking appropriate steps to protect the interest of coconut farmers in Kerala. 4. In the earlier Writ Petition filed, petitioner's request was for issuing mandamus to the Central Government from importing Palm Oil into the country to the detriment of coconut growers. This Court, while dismissing the Writ Petition, however, had observed that the State Government would take appropriate action to protect the interest of coconut farmers in Kerala. In the present Writ Petition, it is complained that even after 3 years, the State Government and the Central Government have failed to honour the clear undertaking given before this Court. 5. In our view, if for any reason the respondents have not complied with the undertaking that they had given before this Court in the earlier Petition, the petitioner has to file appropriate petition for appropriate relief. 6. The principles of constructive res judicata apply even in a proceedings under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. The earlier petition filed by the petitioner having been dismissed, it is not open to the petitioner to raise the self same question in this Writ Petition again only on the purported ground that this Court had stated while dismissing the petition that the Government would take appropriate action to help the coconut farmers in the State of Kerala. WP(C).21767/08 3 7. In view of the above, we decline to entertain this petition. Accordingly it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU Chief Justice A.K. BASHEER Judge an.