A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) LIST has been revised. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Sri. R. N. Tripathi, advocate learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 is present. ( 2 ) NAME of two counsel are shown in the cause list of Tuesday-November 11, 2002 viz. , Sarvshri v. P. Mathur and V. K. Singh. The Bench Secretary Informed that Sri V. K. Singh has sent illness slip for both dates. namely, 11. 11. 2002/ 13. 11. 2002. ( 3 ) SRI R. N. Tripathi, advocate appearing on behalf of contesting respondent pointed out that the petitioner is guilty of concealing relevant and material facts, as mentioned in para 3 of the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, which reads : "3. That the averments made in paragraph 1 of the writ petition is not correct, hence denied it is stated in reply that the award dated 15. 2. 1997, was already challenged before this Honble Court by filing the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21304 of 1998 for its implementation and rest part of the award with regard to 100% back wages was challenged by the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4225 of 1998 which was still pending, it is pertinent to mention here that the question of implementation of the award dated 15. 2. 1997 was already settled by this Honble Court by its judgment dated 7. 7. 1998 in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21304 of 1998 and this Honble court has directed that the respondent shall implement award given by the labour court, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. It is clarified that the receipt of 50% back wages as per award would not prejudice the petitioners claim for full back wages as made in the Writ Petition No. 4225 of 1998 which was served upon the petitioner corporation on 14. 7. 1998 but the respondent/ present petitioner having proper knowledge about the judgment dated 7. 7. 1998, passed by the Honble Court filed present Writ Petition No. 22385 of 1998 by suppressing and concealing the judgment dated 7. 7. 1998 and got ex parte interim order dated 30. 7. 1998. A true copy of the judgment dated 7. 7. 1998 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-C. A. 1 to the affidavit. 7. 1998, passed by the Honble Court filed present Writ Petition No. 22385 of 1998 by suppressing and concealing the judgment dated 7. 7. 1998 and got ex parte interim order dated 30. 7. 1998. A true copy of the judgment dated 7. 7. 1998 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-C. A. 1 to the affidavit. " ( 4 ) COPY of the aforesaid counter-affidavit along with stay vacate application was served on the learned counsel for the petitioner (i. e. , Sri V. P. Mathur, advocate on 10. 11. 2001) as per endorsement on the Stay Vacate Application. Sri V. P. Mathur, advocate still continues to be the counsel for the petitioner. No rejoinder-affidavit is on record rebutting the contents of paragraphs 3 of the above mentioned counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. In view of the above, the petitioner cannot be allowed to maintain the present writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ) THIS Court does not appreciate the practice of filing subsequent petitions by concealing fact of earlier dismissal of petition, particularly when it is Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner ought to have taken care to file rejoinder-affidavit with utmost speed and expeditiousness in view of the averments made in para 3 of the counter-affidavit, quoted above. ( 6 ) IN view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with costs which I quantify at Rs. 10,000 out of which Rs. 5,000 shall be paid to respondent No. 2 and balance amount of Rs. 5,000 shall be deposited with State Legal Aid Committee. The petitioner shall file requisite document indicating payment of above costs within three months from today. Any failure of this order will amount to committing contempt of this Court and the respondent No. 2 shall have option to initiate contempt proceedings as well as to approach the concerned District Magistrate to recover the amount as land revenue. .