Honble R.A. Singh, J.—By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the rejection letter of respondents No. 1 and 2 dated 11.9.2009 (Annexure No. 9) in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Management, Assistant Salt Commissioner v. Secretary Central Salt Mazdoor Union, (2008) 11 SCC 278 and has further prayed to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents No. 1 to 4 to grant housing loan to the petitioner within the shortest possible time to be fixed by this Court as the matter of being identical nature has been decided by this Court in C.M.W.P. No. 14976 of 2001 which is binding upon the respondents in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others, (2008) 10 SCC 1.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that this second writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for relief and cause of action given in the instant writ petition in consonance to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Commissioner Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689 and no other writ petition has been filed earlier before this Court or in any Court of law for the same relief and cause of action. The petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to grant housing loan as the relevant documents have already been filed before the respondents in obedience to the order dated 22.7.2009 passed by this Court in C.M.W.P. No. 33114 of 2009 (Annexure No. 3) and vis-a-vis the case of identical nature has already been decided by this Court in C.M.W.P. No. 14976 of 2001 (Annexure No. 1) which is binding upon the respondents in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others, (2008) 10 SCC 1.

3. The petitioner has further alleged in his writ petition that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has applied for a housing loan for purchase of plot and construction thereon before respondents No. 1 and 2 on 22.6.2009 (Annexure No. 2) and due to inordinate delay in the sanction of the housing loan, the petitioner approached this Court and filed first writ petition No. 33114 of 2009, in which an order was passed directing the petitioner to appear before the Branch Manager of the Bank alongwith certified copy of this order and submit the relevant documents as required by the bank for processing the application and after submission of the relevant documents the bank shall process the application and take a final decision on the application of the petitioner (Annexure No. 3). The petitioner then submitted the copy of order of this Court before the respondents through speed post on 29.7.2009 with a request to intimate about the relevant documents which were required by the bank for sanction of the loan proposal (Annexure No. 4). The respondents No. 1 and 2 visited the premises of the petitioner on 3.8.2009 and provided the copy of documents required to be submitted along with application (Annexure No. 2) for process of loan. The petitioner submitted the required documents on 4.8.2009 in the office of respondent No. 1 (Annexure No. 6). The respondents No. 1 and 2 again raised some twenty six hypothetical objections in derogation to the order passed by this Court in the above writ petition with a malafide intention to create a stumbling block in the sanction of housing loan proposal (Annexure No. 7). The petitioner sent letter dated 25.8.2009 (Annexure No. 8) warning the respondents. The respondents No. 1 and 2 then sent letter dated 11.9.2009 (Annexure No. 9) to the petitioner under which his proposal for loan was declined. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner filed contempt petition No. 3656 of 2009, which was rejected by this Court on 14.10.2009 (Annexure No. 10) and then the petitioner filed this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner wanted to construct his house, one of bas