Judgment :- NAINAR SUNDARAM, J. These two Writ Appeals are directed against the Order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4182 of 1987. The appellants in Writ Appeal No. 23 of 1988 are the respondents in the Writ Petition. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 2185 of 1987 is a third party and he was not a party to the writ petition and he has preferred the writ appeal after obtaining the leave of this Court. The respondent in Writ Appeal No. 23 of 1988 and the first respondent in Writ Appeal No. 2185 of 1987 is the petitioner in the writ petition. We propose to refer to the necessary parties as per their array in the writ petition. We shall refer to the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 2185 of 1987 as the third party, if occasion therefor arises. The third party is none else than a member of the petitioner. 2. For the purpose of appreciating and resolving the controversy raised in these two writ appeals, certain facts have got to be set down. There is the petitioner, a society called 'Lakshmipuram College Society, Neyyoor' and it runs a college under the name and style of 'Lakshmipuram College of Arts and Science, Neyyoor', hereinafter called the college. On 4-2-1975 by G. O. Ms. No. 180, Education Department. There has been a nomination of Care-taker and to look after the affairs of the College till the settlement of the dispute among the rival groups of the management now pending in the Court. The body of G. O. Ms. No. 180 runs as follows:- There has been a break down of the administration of the Lakshmipuram College of Arts and Science, Neyyoor from the academic year 1973-74. The College has remained closed for some time now. There have been reports of two groups within the management and both the groups going to Court against each other and the matter is still unsettled. As a result of this, the administration of the college has broken down leading to nonpayment of salary to teaching and non-teaching staff since September, 1973. The Government had to intervene on a previous occasion to disburse the salaries to the staff up to December, 1973. The salaries of the staff have not been paid from January, 1974 till date due to the continuance of dispute among the members of the management. The Government had to intervene on a previous occasion to disburse the salaries to the staff up to December, 1973. The salaries of the staff have not been paid from January, 1974 till date due to the continuance of dispute among the members of the management. The Government has not been in a position to release the grant due to the non-settlement of the dispute among the members of the management. The College has almost been brought to a stand still and the students have also been agitating over this. The majority of the members of Lakshmipuram College society have lately requested the Government to take over the administration of this college and have also given their written consent for the same. The Collector has endorsed their request for the interest of the smooth running of the institution and keeping in view the interest of the students and the staff of the College and Government has decided to nominate a care-taker to look after the affairs of the college till the settlement of the dispute among the rival groups of the management now pending in the court. The Government accordingly direct the G.E.O., K.K. District to be the caretaker of the Lakshmipuram College of Arts and Science, Neyyoor with immediate effect. The C. E. C., Kanyakumari as the care-taker of the college will arrange to disburse the salary due to the staff of the college from January, 1974 after obtaining an undertaking from each member of the staff together with a surity agreeing to refund the amount of such repayment if demanded by Government at a later date. Sanction is also accorded for the creation of the post of a Junior Superintendent in the scale of pay of Rs. 350-15-500-20-600 to assist the C. E. O. for a period of one year or till the necessity ceases whichever is earlier. The incumbent will also be eligible for the usual allowances. The Director of C. E. is requested to appoint a suitable person as Junior Superintendent to assist the C.E.C. Kanyakumari. This order issues with the concurrence of Finance Department vide its U. O. No. 240/ P3/P/75-a) dated 1-2-1975." 3. With regard to the disputes pending in the Courts on the date of G.O. Ms. The Director of C. E. is requested to appoint a suitable person as Junior Superintendent to assist the C.E.C. Kanyakumari. This order issues with the concurrence of Finance Department vide its U. O. No. 240/ P3/P/75-a) dated 1-2-1975." 3. With regard to the disputes pending in the Courts on the date of G.O. Ms. 180, all the parties represented by their respective learned counsel, are in agreement that there were three proceedings as follows:- (1) O. S. No. 54 of 1974 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram; (2) O. S. No. 68 of 1974 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram :- (3) O. P. No. 8 of 1974 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram. We need not necessarily deal with the minute details of the controversy in the three litigations. Suffice it to state that they related to the affairs of the college. O P. No. 8 of 1974 was specifically filed for the framing of a scheme with reference to the proper functioning of the college and for other ancillary reliefs. On 19-11-1975, O. P. No. 8 of 1974 was thrown out on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram and the petition was returned for the purpose of presentation before the proper Court. However, that event never happened, in the sense the papers in O. P. No. 8 of 1974 returned by the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, did not get presented before the proper Court. In the meanwhile, the petitioner came to this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 1398 of 1975, impugning G.O. Ms. No. 180 and the learned single Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, Mohan, J., as he then was, passed orders as follows on 1-7-1976 : "I direct the learned Subordinate Judge of Padmanabhapuram to dispose of O. S. No. 54 of 1974 and O. S. No. 68 of 1974 within six months from today. Till disposal of the suit, the following arrangements made in W.M.P. Nos. 1923 and 3134 of 1975 will be in force : 'In view of the fact that the administration of the college has to be carried on, the caretaker appointed' under the impugned order to manage the college will take charge of the administration of the college, and run the same according to the terms of the impugned Government Order. 1923 and 3134 of 1975 will be in force : 'In view of the fact that the administration of the college has to be carried on, the caretaker appointed' under the impugned order to manage the college will take charge of the administration of the college, and run the same according to the terms of the impugned Government Order. This Order is however made without prejudice to the contentions of the parties in the main writ petition. "It will be open to the writ petitioner to raise all its contentions in the suit and if necessary amend even the plaint. With these observations, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs." 4. As we could see from the extract of the order made by the learned single Judge, the direction was that the administration of the College has to be carried on by the caretaker appointed under the impugned order, according to the terms thereof. On 14-7-1976 the suits 0. S. Nos. 54 and 68 of 1974 got disposed of. On 9-10-1976, a Petition, O. P. No. 55 of 1976 came to be instituted on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil and that petition was returned on 23-11-1976 and it was filed getting the number on 26-111976. There was an appeal. A.S. No. 368 of 1976, preferred against the decision in O.S. No. 68 of 1974 and that appeal was dismissed on 21-3-1977. The second appeal against A. S. No. 368 of 1976 was dismissed by this Court on 26-6-1981. In between, writ petition No. 1587 of 1979 was filed by the petitioner and its secretary asking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hand over the administration of the college to the petitioner. That was dealt with on 11-6-1979 by another learned single Judge. V. Ramaswami, J., as he then was, and the order passed by the learned single Judge runs as follows: "This is a petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hand over the administration of Lakshmipuram College, Neyyoor, Kanyakumari District, to the petitioner. It appears that there was a faction and due to that the administration of the college could not be carried on smoothly. Accordingly, the Government interfered in the matter and passed an order in G. O. Ms. No. 180, Education, dated 4-2-1975 appointing the third respondent as caretaker. It appears that there was a faction and due to that the administration of the college could not be carried on smoothly. Accordingly, the Government interfered in the matter and passed an order in G. O. Ms. No. 180, Education, dated 4-2-1975 appointing the third respondent as caretaker. The petitioners filed W. P. No. 1398 of 1975 for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 4-2-1975 appointing the third respondent as caretaker. In the meantime it appears that the contending parties went to the civil Court and one Ayyana Pillai and another filed O.S. No. 414 of 1974 on the file of the Additional District Munsiff's Court for certain reliefs, which as later transferred to the Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram, and numbered as O. S. No. 68 of 1974. Two directors filed O. S. No. 54 of 1974 on the file of the Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram for an injunction. It appears yet another suit was also filed for framing a scheme of management. While dismissing W.P. No. 1398 of 1975 in admission, this Court ordered that the interim arrangement made by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 180, Education, dated 4-2-1975 should be continued pending disposal of O.S. Nos. 54 and 68 of 1974. Probably the learned Judge was not aware of the pendency of the scheme suit. On the ground that in O. S. Nos. 54 and 68 of 1974, the petitioners have succeeded and the suits have been dismissed, the petitioners now seek that the third-respondent should be directed to hand over possession. Notice of motion was issued and it is represented that the scheme suit is still pending and the order of this Court dated 1-7-1978 in W. P. No. 1398 of 1975 was not made after notice to the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 54 and 68 of 1974 or to the persons who have filed the Scheme suit. In these circumstances, the interim arrangement made by the Government in the above said G. O. Ms. No. 180, Education, dated 4-2-1975 could not be interfered with at this stage. All the disputes will have to be settled in the suits, and the civil proceedings pending, and not in this Court under writ jurisdiction. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs." As against the above order of the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 1587 of 1979, there had been no further agitation. All the disputes will have to be settled in the suits, and the civil proceedings pending, and not in this Court under writ jurisdiction. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs." As against the above order of the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 1587 of 1979, there had been no further agitation. 5. The petitioner in 1987 filed the present Writ Petition, W. P. No. 4182 of 1987 asking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hand over the administration of the petitioner-society within a period to be stipulated by this Court. That writ petition has been disposed of by the learned single Judge, again Mohan, J., as he then was and the learned single Judge adverted to the terms of G. O. Ms. No. 180 to nominate a caretaker to look after the affairs of the college till the settlement of the dispute among the rival groups of the management now pending in the Court', and opined that after the suits O. S. Nos. 54 and 68 of 1974 had come to be disposed of, there was no warrant for keeping away the petitioner from the administration of the college, and the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition. It is true that learned single Judge entertained the impression that no scheme suit was pending on the date of G. O. Ms. No. 180. But, this is of no consequence at all, because O. P. No. 8 of 1974 which was pending at that time had been disposed of by throwing it out for want of jurisdiction by the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram on 19-11-1975, and views from that angle all the litigation or dispute pending on the date of G. O. Ms. No. 180 got disposed subsequently. The learned single Judge has given reasons for granting reliefs to the petitioner and the relevant passage from his order runs as follows:- "Certainly, from the narration of the facts it will be clear how the foundation of education has been polluted by persons who project their own individual personalities and bring disrepute to the institution, who ever has been responsible. Because it has resulted in assault on the members of the staff, criminal cases against students and, certain members of the staff being compelled to go on long leave. These in my considered view are totally alien to the administration of an educational institution. Because it has resulted in assault on the members of the staff, criminal cases against students and, certain members of the staff being compelled to go on long leave. These in my considered view are totally alien to the administration of an educational institution. Certainly, the Government then were justified in making an interim arrangement; but not any longer after the judgment of Venugopal, J. in S.A. No. 2186 of 1977 dated 26-6-1981. After this, the petitioner had been repeatedly writing on various dates right from 16-7-1981, 17-12-1981, 31-3-1982, 2-4-1984, 21-10-1983, 3-4-1984, 22-11-1985 and also a suit notice under Section 80 C.P.C. on 15-7-1986. All these have evoked no response and therefore being left with no other alternative, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. I am unable to see on what ground the petitioner could be denied the relief. Certainly not on these core of peniency of the scheme suit. Once this unseemly rivalty had been put an end to by valid judicial orders, this ought to be respected. From that point of view, I am left with no option but to grant the prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is admitted and allowed though at present it is only at the stage of notice of motion. Learned Additional Government Pleader wants some time to hand over the administration for which time is granted till 20-12-1987.1 make it clear that this order shall be obeyed punctually. No costs." As already noted, these two writ appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge by the concerned parties. 6. Mr. V. Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the third party, appellant in Writ Appeal No. 2185 of 1987 and Mr. K. Ravirajapandian, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, appellants in Writ Appeal No. 23 of 1988 would submit that the learned single Judge was not correct in proceeding on the basis that the dispute among the rival groups which has been referred to in G. O. Ms. No. 180, has been settled and the learned single Judge omitted to take note of the pendency of O. P. No. 55 of 1976 on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, which continues even today. As against, this, Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that on the date of G. O. Ms. No. 180, has been settled and the learned single Judge omitted to take note of the pendency of O. P. No. 55 of 1976 on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, which continues even today. As against, this, Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that on the date of G. O. Ms. No. 180 there were only three litigations pending viz. O.S. Nos. 54 of 1974, 68 of 1974 and O. P. No. 8 of 1974 and the first respondent must be deemed to have taken note of the pendency of these disputes alone; and so far as suits O. S. Nos. 54 and 68 of 1974 are concerned, they have been given a quietus by decisions of Courts, the last of which is one rendered by this Court in Second Appeal No. 2186 of 1977 on 26-6-1981; and so far as O. P. No. 8 of 1974 is concerned, that had been also disposed of and after all these, there was no warrant for keeping away the petitioner from its otherwise legitimate right of management and administration of the college and that would be extremely inequitable, unfair and harsh to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that viewed from all angles, there is no justification for continuing the clamp under G. O. Ms. No. 180 over the legitimate rights of the petitioner for management and administration of the college. 7. Our assessment of the factual features of the case makes us inclined to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As already noted, on the date of G. O. Ms. No. 180, there were three litigations pending before Courts. So far as the suits are concerned, they came to an end by the disposal of the Second Appeal No. 2186 of 1977 on 26-6-1981. Coming to O. P. No. 8 of 1974, that was thrown out by the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, for want of jurisdiction. It is true there was a return of the petition for purpose of presentation before the proper Court. Assuming that we could conceive of a proposition of continued litigation, in the event of the presentation of the papers in O. P. No. 8 of 1974 before the proper Court, since that event never happened, there is no warrant at all for even proceeding on that assumption. Assuming that we could conceive of a proposition of continued litigation, in the event of the presentation of the papers in O. P. No. 8 of 1974 before the proper Court, since that event never happened, there is no warrant at all for even proceeding on that assumption. The proceedings actually ended by the order of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram on 19-11-1975. There afterwards the said proceedings were forgotten. 8. However, what is being sought to be pressed forth on behalf of the respondents and the third party is the institution and pendency of O. P. No. 55 of 1976 on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. That was a fresh initiation of fresh proceedings. It is only in this connection, Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to the features of distinction between the two proceedings, namely, the proceedings in O. P. No. 8 of 1974 and O. P. No. 55 of 1976. The parties are not practically the same. The reliefs asked for are also different. For the purpose of clarity, we are obliged to extract the reliefs in the two proceedings. The relief asked for in O. P. No. 8 of 1974 run as follows:- "It is, therefore, prayed that - A. A proper scheme may be framed providing for the proper functioning of the Lakshmipuram College Society and its constituent unit viz. the Lakshmipuram College of Arts and Science. B. Till the disposal of the case, the Administration of the society may be taken over by the Court to see that the Lakshmipuram College of Arts and Science functions properly. C. The petitioners be allowed to recover the costs of the petitioners from the contesting respondents. D. Such other reliefs deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." The reliefs asked for in O. P. No. 55 of 1976 are as follows:- "It is therefore prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to frame a Scheme - (a) Restoring the non-denominational character of the institution. (b) Providing for a proper manager of the society and the Lakshmipuram College of Arts and Science. (c) Directing respondents 6, 7, 11 and 19 to render true and proper accounts of the funds of the Society. (d) pass such order or further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (b) Providing for a proper manager of the society and the Lakshmipuram College of Arts and Science. (c) Directing respondents 6, 7, 11 and 19 to render true and proper accounts of the funds of the Society. (d) pass such order or further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (e) And award costs from the contesting respondents." It cannot be envisaged that at the time of passing of G. O. Ms. No. 180, the first-respondent contemplated the cropping up of fresh proceedings other than those pending in the Court at that time. The specific expressions used are "to nominate a caretaker to look after the affairs of the college till the settlement of the dispute among the rival groups of the management now pending in the Court." It will be harsh, inequitable, unfair, arbitrary and capricious if we subscribe support to any theory that the first respondent intended to keep the petitioner away from its otherwise legitimate right of management and administration of the college until disputes not only pending; but are likely to arise in future are all settled. That would be a never ending problem and an unworkable proposition. From the factual angle, we find that what all litigations were pending on the date of G. O. Ms. No. 180, had come to an end when the present writ petition, W. P. No. 4182 of 1987 came to be filed in 19$7. It is not possible to take note of the pendency of O. P. No. 55 of 1976 as a pendency of dispute contemplated and taken note of by the first respondent while passing G. O. Ms. No. 180. Viewed from this angle, we cannot take exception to the order made by the learned single Judge, subject matter of challenge in these two writ Appeals. 9. However, learned counsel for the third party, and the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for respondents would submit that the decision in Writ Petition No. 1587 of 1979 must be held to have concluded the issue and become final and it will not be open to the petitioner to ask in the present writ petition, the very same reliefs negatived by the learned single Judge in the earlier writ petition, namely, W. P. No. 1587 of 1989. What is being urged is the principle of res judicata. What is being urged is the principle of res judicata. It is true that the general principle of res judicata applies to petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, where a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is considered on merits, as a contested matter, and dismissed by this Court, the decision pronounced is binding on the parties unless modified or reversed on appeal or other appropriate proceedings under the Constitution and a Second Writ Petition filed in respect of the same matter would be barred by res judicata. The application of the principle of res judicata will depend upon the rights of the parties, the nature of the claims, the facts of the case and the scope of the points raised. The decline by this Court in the earlier writ petition to issue the mandamus could not be implicitly stated to have barred, every and any subsequent move of the petitioner to ask for a mandamus, when a case therefor has arisen. May be, if there is a substantive point decided against the petitioner in the earlier writ petition, that will have to be taken to be final, in the absence of the same having been modified or reversed on appeal. On carefully going through the order of the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 1587 of 1979, as per extract made above, we are not able to say that any substantives point was decided against the petitioner. The learned single Judge has only considered the question of propriety of issuing the writ of mandamus as asked for by the petitioner at that stage and under the impression that a scheme suit pending at the time of G. O. Ms. No. 180, continued to be pending, declined to issue the writ. The learned single Judge has not referred to the number of any such scheme suit. We could not say from a reading of the order of the learned single Judge as to whether he was referring to O. P. No. 8 of 1974 or O P. No. 55 of 1976. If we should take the reference as meaning O. P. No. 8 of 1974, which of course was pending on the date of G. O. Ms. No. 180, certainly that had been put an end to on 19-11-1975. If we should take the reference as meaning O. P. No. 8 of 1974, which of course was pending on the date of G. O. Ms. No. 180, certainly that had been put an end to on 19-11-1975. If, on the other hand, we should take the reference as meaning O. P. No. 55 of 1976, that was not even instituted on the date of G. O. Ms. No. 180, and hence could not come within the purview of disputes pending then in Court. This aspect apart, we should could only construe the order of the learned single Judge, as having declined to issue the writ of mandamus at that juncture. He has not negatived the plea of the petitioner on the ground that on any legal principle he could not ask for the writ of Mandamus. 10. Successive petitions for the highly prerogative writ of mandamus will not be allowed as a general principle. But, this Court will entertain a second petition even after the refusal of the first, if facts support the grant of such second petition. One such case which we could envisage is where the factual warrant for issuing a writ of mandamus was not present and made out at the time of the disposal of the earlier petition, but such a warrant has been made out while considering the second petition. The instant case must be held to be such a one. 11. Courts dealing with questions of infringment of fundamental rights must consistently endeavour to sustain the rights and must strike down their unconstitutional invasion. It is true that in this process, Courts are not supposed to ignore altogether the principle of res judicata. Considerations of Public Policy impel the Courts to remember and apply the basic doctrine that judgments pronounced by competent Courts on the same issues must be held to be binding and final between the parties to them. It must be remembered that the application of the doctrine of res judicata to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not in any way impair or affect the content o the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India to the citizens. The doctrine of res judicata seeks only to regulate the manner in which the said rights could be successfully asserted and vindicated in Courts of law. The doctrine of res judicata seeks only to regulate the manner in which the said rights could be successfully asserted and vindicated in Courts of law. Every citizen, whose fundamental right is infringed by the State, has a fundamental right to approach the Courts for enforcement of his rights. If, however, by a final decision of a competent Court, his right as such has been negatived, as lacking the legal basis and his claim thereto having no merits he can no longer seek to enforce it. These are principles which have come to be recognised by Courts, including the highest Court in the land, as forming the guidance on the question of the application of the rule of res judicata to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. There has been a clamp on the exercise of the otherwise legitimate right to manage and administer the College, put by G. O. Ms. No. 180 on the petitioner. So long the clamp continues, the cause of action for the petitioner to get out of the clamp recurs and continues. The decision by the learned single Judge in the earlier writ petition, has not completely abrogated and put an end to the right of the petitioner to come to this Court at any subsequent stage to seek a writ of mandamus, making out a case therefor. Though the facts exposed clearly indicate that the view of the learned single Judge that any scheme suit, which was pending on the date of G. O. Ms. No. 180, continued to be pending even on the date of the order of the learned single Judge, is not correct, and yet it has to be taken to have become final on the application of the rule of res judicata; even then the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the continuation of the clamp over its legitimate right to manage and administer the college can certainly be looked into, when it approaches this Court subsequently in writ jurisdiction for redressal and relief, pleading the justifying facts therefor. As we stated earlier, the grievance is a continuing and a recurring one. It has got to be assessed at the juncture of the second approach taking note of all the existing relevant facts and circumstances at that juncture. As we stated earlier, the grievance is a continuing and a recurring one. It has got to be assessed at the juncture of the second approach taking note of all the existing relevant facts and circumstances at that juncture. Here we find and that has been already made out that whatever disputes were pending on the date of G. O. Ms. No. 180 had been put an end to and none of those litigation continued to be pending when the present writ petition, W. P. No. 4182 of 1987 came to be dealt with and disposed of. When the matter comes up for fresh examination before this Court on a fresh grievance made by the petitioner and in particular before us as the Letters Patent Appellate Bench, it cannot be stated that we should shut our eyes to the realities and the factualities of the case. The whole controversy is now before us and we are called upon to find out the justification and warrant for keeping alive the clamp put up by G. O. Ms. No. 180 on the otherwise legitimate right of the petitioner to manage and administer the College. As already noted, the grievance of the petitioner is a recurring and a continuous one, so long it is kept out of its otherwise legitimate right to manage and administer the College and that requires examination afresh by this Court when the move therefor is presented before it. 13. On facts, we have not found a justification for the continuance of the clamp on the right of the petitioner to manage and administer the College. Litigations which were, in fact; pending on the date of G. O. Ms. No. 180 have ceased to be pending as per our tracing of the facts, done supra, on the date of disposal of U. P. No. 4182 of 1987. Even if we proceed on the assumption that such litigations continued to be pending then it must be held that taking note of pendency of litigation had lost its relevancy and reason. Parties by their cantankerous, spiteful and acrimonious attitudes and acts, are capable of keeping alive such litigations perpetually also. In that context, to deny reliefs to the petitioner, on the strict verbalism found in G. O. Ms. No. 180 would be meeting out a harsh, unfair and inequitable treatment to it. Parties by their cantankerous, spiteful and acrimonious attitudes and acts, are capable of keeping alive such litigations perpetually also. In that context, to deny reliefs to the petitioner, on the strict verbalism found in G. O. Ms. No. 180 would be meeting out a harsh, unfair and inequitable treatment to it. The examination of the entire field of controversy impresses us that it is unfair, inequitable and harsh that the petitioner should continue to suffer the clamp under G. O. Ms. No. 180. Either the litigations pending on the date of G. O. Ms. No. 180 came to an end or continued to be pending, there is no justification for keeping away the petitioner from the management and administration of the college. The earlier writ petition, W.P. No. 1587 of 1979, was disposed of on 11-6-1979. The present writ petition W.P. No. 4182 of 1987 had come to be filed after the lapse of eight years. The situation had become totally inequitable to the petitioner and there is every justification for granting reliefs to the petitioner. In this view, we are not inclined to disturb the decision of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, these two writ appeals fail and they are dismissed. No costs. 14. Now that the writ appeal have been disposed of, the respondents shall hand over the management of the College to the petitioner before 31-5-1991. Order accordingly.