K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Writ Appeal No. 356 of 2001 is filed by the District Collector and two other Officers against the order dated 15.1.2001 passed by the learned single judge in C.M.P. No. 2576 of 2001 in C.M.P. No. 59154 of 2000 in O.P. No. 34593 of 2000. Writ Appeal No. 461 of 2001 is also filed by the same appellants against the order dated 19.1.2001 passed by the learned single judge in C.M.P. No. 2576 of 2001 in C.M.P. No. 59154 of 2000 in O.P. No. 34593 of 2000.

2. Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent in the appeals seeking writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P2 notice of attachment dated 20.10.1998 in respect of 2.41 acres of land in survey number 68/3,4,5 of Karimpuzha village for realisation of an amount of Rs. 2,96,721/- being arrears towards toddy workers welfare fund. She has also challenged Ext. P3 notice of attachment dated 7.11.1998 issued by the Tahsildar, Ottappalam for reaslisation of Rs. 9,22,729/- towards abkari dues. She has also challenged Ext.P4 proceeding dated 23.12.1998 initiated by the Tahsildar, Ottappalam for recovery of an amount of Rs. 12,26,538/- towards abkari dues as well as amount due to toddy workers welfare fund. Notice dated 22.11.2000 issued by the Tahsildar, Ottapalam was also challenged in the Writ Petition. Direction was also sought for to consider Ext. P7 and pass appropriate orders. Writ of mandamus was also sought for directing the revenue authorities to proceed against respondents 4 and 5 therein for realisation of the welfare fund as well as abkari dues. Writ Petition was admitted on 12.12.2000 and the learned single judge passed an interim order on the same day in C.M.P. No. 59154 of 2000 as follows:

"Urgent notice.

Further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P6 as against the petitioner will stand stayed on condition that petitioner pays an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs within a period of one month. In the meanwhile, the second respondent will pursue the possibilities for recovering the amounts that are due from the fourth and fifth respondents as well.

Post for further orders on 22.1.2001"

First respondent then filed C.M.P. No. 2576 of 2001 in C.M.P. No. 59154 of 2000 in O.P. No. 34593 of 2000 to enlarge the time for making the payment. It was stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that she had approached the Tahsildar and offered to pay Rs.1 lakh but the Tahsildar refused to accept the same. Consequently she wanted extension of time to pay the balance of Rs. 4 lakhs. The learned single judge on 15.1.2001 passed the following order:

"Taking note of the averments in the affidavit, I direct that time granted for payment as per order on C.M.P. No. 59154 of 2000 is extended upto 16.2.2001. The balance stated to be payable is Rupees four lakhs. Petitioner should pay rupees one lakh before 25th January 2001. On such payment, the articles that have been attached from the property may be released and the petitioner will be permitted to occupy the building subject to final orders that are to be passed in this O.P."

Against the above interim order W. A. No. 356 of 2001 was filed by the appellants. On 22.1.2001 a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order.

"It is unfortunate that the petitioner did not make any reference to her earlier approach to this court by filing O.P.No. 1201 of 1999 and obtaining order of stay of recovery of the amounts due from her from the year 1997 onwards. There is also no reference made to the order of stay obtained from the Government during the pendency of O.P. No. 1201 of 1999.

When the Writ Appeal came up for admission the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ stated that she had not filed any Writ Petition before this court seeking identical reliefs based on similar cause of action. The conduct of the first respondent has to be deprecated. R.146 of the High Court Rules, 1971 obliges every party to file a statement as to whether the party had filed any petition seeking the very same reliefs earlier and if so the decisi