Failure to disclose previous petitions seeking similar relief as required by the rules constitutes an abuse of the court's process.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Petitioner is the President of the Thrithala Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. He has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to keep in abeyance all proceedings pursuant to his order No. C.R.P. 587/97 dated 15.6.1998, and also for a direction to the second respondent to forward all necessary papers in relation to that proceedings to the Government so as to take a decision on Ext. P1 appeal petition, and Ext. P2 stay petition pending before the Government, and also for other consequential reliefs.

2. Second respondent, Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies passed order No. C.R.P. 587/97 dated 15.6.1998 under S.68(1) of the Act, appointing Unit Co-operative Inspector, Thrithala, to conduct an enquiry and also to submit a report before 16.7.1998 with regard to certain allegations against the petitioner for unauthorised detention of the bank's fund, and also for spending an amount of Rs. 2,88,024/- without prior permission from the department. Unit Co-operative Inspector was also directed to assess the loss caused to the bank due to the above mentioned conduct of the petitioner. Petitioner, aggrieved by the above mentioned order dated 15.6.1998 of the second respondent, preferred an appeal before the Government, Ext. P1, and stay petition, Ext. P2. Petitioner also filed C.M.P. No. 32486of 1998 for a direction to the respondents to keep in abeyance of the order C.R.P. 587/97 dated 15.6.1998 pending disposal of the appeal and stay petition.

3. Learned Government Pleader Sri. N. Reghu Raj pointed out when the Original Petition came up for admission, that petitioner had earlier filed O.P. No. 13991 of 1998 on 24.7.1988 seeking similar reliefs in respect of the same subject matter, and this court refused to grant the same. Learned Government Pleader submitted the said fact was not disclosed in the Original Petition. On the said submission. I called for the files in O.P. No. 13991 of 1998, and I find a similar writ petition was filed by the same petitioner earlier seeking similar relief that is for a writ of mandamus to the Joint Registrar forbearing from proceedings further with his order dated 15.6.1998 pending disposal of the revision petition or passing orders on the application for stay by the first respondent. A direction was also sought for in that O.P. to the first respondent, the Government to take up the revision and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition at the admission stage on 27.7. 199 8 declining to stay further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 15.6.1998 of the Joint Registrar. Learned Government Pleader who appeared in O.P. No. 13991 of 1998 had submitted that the order dated 15.6.1998 was only an order passed under S.68(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and that notice would be given to the petitioner under S.68(2). This Court noticed that the order dated 15.6.1998 was not a final order, and held that if the petitioner is aggrieved he had to work out his remedies before the appropriate authorities. C.M.P. No. 24691 of 1998 seeking stay of the order dated 15.6.1998 of the Joint Registrar was also dismissed.

4. On going through the averments in both the Writ Petitions I find that the relief sought for in OP 13991 of 1998 and C.M.P. No. 24691/98 and the present Writ Petition and CMP are similar and pertaining to the same subject matter. In both the Writ Petitions challenge was against the order of the Joint Registrar dated 15.6.1998 and in both the Writ Petitions interim relief sought for was to keep in abeyance/stay of the same order dated 15.6.1998.

5. In O.P. No. 13991 of 1998, in the affidavit filed along with the Writ Petition, petitioner had stated as follows:

"The petitioner has notified earlier, petitions seeking similar and identical reliefs in respect of the same subject matter".

However, hi the affidavit filed along with the present O.P. Petitioner has stated as follows:

"The