The Court upheld the principle that prior resolutions of complaints render subsequent petitions for mandamus infructuous.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" (i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 3^rd to immediately take follow- up action pursuant to Ext-P8 and finalize the proceedings thereto.

(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1, 2 and 10 to immediately take follow-up action on the petitioner’s complaint (iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3^rd respondent to take appropriate action against respondents 4 to 9 under the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act for violation of the orders passed by the 3^rd respondent. "

[SIC]

2. The main prayer in this writ petition is to issue a direction to the 3^rd respondent immediately to take follow-up pursuant to Ext.P8. Ext.P8 is the representation dated 05.03.2025. This Court, in another writ petition filed by the petitioner himself, issued certain directions in judgment dated 24.03.2025 in WP (C) No.8495/2025. It will be better to extract the judgment dated

24.03.2025 in WP (C) No.8495/2025:

“The petitioner is aggrieved by illegal construction made by the respondents 4 and 5. According to the petitioner, even though Ext.P6 provisional order under Section 235W(1) was issued to the party respondents as early as on 19.01.2024 further proceedings have not been initiated. It was in these circumstances, this writ petition was submitted seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 2 & 3 to immediately take followup action in Ext-P6 and finalize the proceedings thereto.

(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to take appropriate against respondents 4 and 5 under the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act for violation of the orders passed by the 3rd respondent.

(iii) Such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the nature of this case.”

Today when the matter came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that final order based on Ext.P6 is already passed and based on the same the unauthorized constructions carried out by the party respondents were already removed. Thereafter, an application was submitted by the party respondents seeking regularization of the some of the construction and considering the same regularization was also granted as per Resolution dated 24.09.2024.

In such circumstances, the reliefs sought by the petitioner have become infructuous. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach this Court again in case of any fresh cause of action."

3. In the light of this judgment dated 24.03.2025, there need not be any direction to consider a representation dated 05.03.2025, as evident by Ext.P8. If there is any fresh cause of action to the petitioner, the same is left open.

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-