Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, their men and agents not to interfere with the petitioners possession of the Aircrafts bearing Nos.MSN 17000126 VT-PAD, MSN 17000137 VT-PAE and MSN 17000147 VT-PAF. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 27. 2005 the petitioner entered into three Aircraft Specific Lease Agreements with Celestial Aviation Trading 71 Limited, under which the three Aircrafts below mentioned were leased out in favour of the petitioner: .(a) MSN 17000126 VT-PAD, .(b) MSN 17000137 VT-PAE and .(c) MSN 17000147 VT-PAF. On 9. 2009 and 19. 2009, urgent default notices were issued by the Lessor on the ground that the petitioner had defaulted in paying the agreed rent. On 110. 2009, the Lessor issued a notice of termination and called upon the petitioner to stop using the Aircrafts and hand over possession of the Aircrafts. On 110. 2009, the Lessor Company filed a claim petitioner before the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench, London, and prayed for a declaration that the termination of the lease agreement is valid and for a direction that the petitioner should hand over possession of the Aircrafts. On 111. 2009, the Director General of the Civil Aviation issued notice to de-register the leased Aircrafts and directed the petitioner to give its comments, for which the petitioner sent a reply followed with another notice dated 30.11.2009. The petitioner approached this Court at notice stage by filing W.P.No.21080 of 2009 and the same having been dismissed by this Court, petitioner filed W.A.No.1704 of 2009 before the Division Bench of this Court and the writ appeal was disposed of by this Court on 211. 2009 granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all its objections before the authorities concerned. On 12. 2009 the Director General of Civil Aviation passed an order cancelling the registration of the Aircrafts with immediate effect. On 12. 2009, the said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C)No.13678 of 2009 and obtained interim stay of the operation of the order dated 12. 2009. The Queens Bench Division, Commercial Court also passed an order against the petitioner, which was challenged before the Appellate Court, and the Appellate Court granted stay on 12. 2010 with certain conditions, to be complied with by 3. 2010. 2009. The Queens Bench Division, Commercial Court also passed an order against the petitioner, which was challenged before the Appellate Court, and the Appellate Court granted stay on 12. 2010 with certain conditions, to be complied with by 3. 2010. The conditional order having not been complied with, the appeal was dismissed on 13. 2010. 3. Thewrit petition filed before the Delhi High Court was dismissed on 13. 2010 based on the order passed by the Appellate Court, London, dated 13. 2010. The petitioner again filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.5283 of 2010 and prayed for issuing a mandamus directing the respondents from taking any action against the said three Aircrafts. The said writ petition was dismissed by me by order dated 13. 2010 holding that the remedy open to the petitioner was to urge all the points before the Delhi High Court either by filing appeal or review. Not satisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed W.A.No.546 of 2010 before the Division Bench of this Court and the same was also dismissed as withdrawn on 4. 2010. 4. The petitioner also filed LPA.No.198 of 2010 before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and challenged the order of the learned single Judge dated 13. 2010. The said appeal was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 23. 2010 against which the petitioner filed SLP(C)No.9519 of 2010 before the Honourable Supreme Court. Thereafter the petitioner appeared before the Director General of Civil Aviation and requested to give post decisional hearing. On 23. 2010 the Director General of Civil Aviation passed an order and sustained his earlier order dated 12. 2009. The said decision of the Director General of Civil Aviation dated 23. 2010 is challenged by the petitioner before the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on 30.3.2010 in W.P.(C)No.127 of 2010 and the said writ petition is still pending. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned the matter for hearing before the Supreme Court on 4. 2010, which was directed to be listed on 4. 2010 by the Supreme Court. On 4. 2010, the Supreme Court ordered, "No orders on the application". The special leave petition filed against the order in LPA No.198 of 2010 against the order of the Delhi High Court dated 23. 2010 was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 30.3.2010. 2010, which was directed to be listed on 4. 2010 by the Supreme Court. On 4. 2010, the Supreme Court ordered, "No orders on the application". The special leave petition filed against the order in LPA No.198 of 2010 against the order of the Delhi High Court dated 23. 2010 was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 30.3.2010. 6. From the above narrated facts it is evident that the cancellation order passed on 12. 2009 is upheld by the Delhi High Court both by the learned single Judge as well as by the Division Bench and the S.L.P. filed before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. The order passed by the Director General of Civil Aviation dated 210. 2003 is the subject matter of W.P.(C)No.127 of 2010 on the file of the Supreme Court, without any interim orders. 7. In the writ petition filed before the Supreme Court in W.P.(C)No.127 of 2010, the following prayers are made by the petitioner before the Supreme Court, "(A) issue an appropriate writ, order of direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 23. 2010 passed by respondent No.2 bearing Ref.No.17/52/09-AI(I) maintaining its earlier order dated 12. 2009 bearing ref.no.4-130/06-AI(I) holding the same as arbitrary and illegal; and .(B) direct Respondent No.2 to withdraw the order of cancellation of registration of aircrafts bearing Registration No.VT-PAD (MSN: 17000126), VT-PAE (MSN: 17000137) and VT-PAF (MSN: 17000147) .(C) direct Respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to use and operate the aircrafts bearing Registration No.VT-PAD (MSN: 17000126), VT-PAE (MSN: 17000137) and VT-PAF (MSN: 17000147) .(D) pass any such further order as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case." Petitioner also prayed for interim stay of the operation of the order passed by the Director General of Civil Aviation dated 210. 2009 maintaining its earlier order dated 12. 2009 pending hearing of the writ petition. 8. As stated supra, no interim order is passed by the Supreme Court. In such circumstances when the matter is seized of by the Honourable Supreme Court, any further direction with regard to the very same subject matter cannot be sought for before this Court. 9. 2009 maintaining its earlier order dated 12. 2009 pending hearing of the writ petition. 8. As stated supra, no interim order is passed by the Supreme Court. In such circumstances when the matter is seized of by the Honourable Supreme Court, any further direction with regard to the very same subject matter cannot be sought for before this Court. 9. When the Honourable Supreme Court is seized of an issue in the very same subject matter under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, whether the High Court can issue any order in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, came up for consideration before the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 434 (Chhavi Mehrotra v. Director General, Health Services) and in paragraph 1 it is held as follows: "1. The petitioner, Miss Chhavi Mehrotra, has moved this writ petition before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for directions for consideration of her admission to the MBBS course against the 15% all-India quota of 1992. This writ petition along with other similar petitions came for consideration and certain comprehensive directions were issued in matters for admission of students in the waiting list to various colleges in the country. In obedience to the orders of this Court a notification dated 28-5-1993 was issued by the Director General of Health Services calling upon the candidates to signify their willingness to be considered for admission under the scheme evolved by the court. Despite the whole matter being seized of by the court, the petitioner moved “and what is disturbing us is that the learned Judge of the High Court entertained” an independent Writ Petition No.1508(M/S) of 1993 before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court and obtained certain directions which would not only be consistent with the consequences of the implementation of this Court’s order but would also interfere and detract from it. Learned counsel would say that it was a direct interference with the proceedings before this Court. It is a clear case where the High Court ought not to have exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 where the matter was clearly seized of by this Court in a petition under Article 32. The petitioner was eo nomine a party to the proceedings before this Court. It is a clear case where the High Court ought not to have exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 where the matter was clearly seized of by this Court in a petition under Article 32. The petitioner was eo nomine a party to the proceedings before this Court. It is an unhappy situation that the learned Judge of the High Court permitted himself to issue certain directions which, if implemented, would detract from the plenitude of the orders of this Court. The learned Single Judge?s perception of justice of the matter might have been different and the abstinence that the observance of judicial propriety, counsels might be unsatisfactory; but judicial discipline would require that in a hierarchical system it is imperative that such conflicting exercise of jurisdiction should strictly be avoided. We restrain ourselves from saying anything more." (Emphasis supplied) 10. Applying the above said decision to the facts of this case and having regard to the pendency of the very same issue before the Supreme Court, I am of the view that the petitioner ought not to have filed this writ petition before this Court as the same is not maintainable. 11. The conduct of the petitioner is nothing but "Forum Shopping". In the decision reported in AIR 1998 SC 1855 (M/s.Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash) in similar circumstances the Supreme Court held that we cannot approve of any attempt on the part of the petitioners to go "forum shopping". In our view, the petitioners cannot be permitted choice of the forum and every attempt at "forum shopping" must be crushed with a heavy hand. The said judgment is followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2006 (1) CTC 732 (Ex.Rect.(MP) A.Madurai Veeran v. Union of India and others). Further, this writ petition is filed on 4. 2010, the same day the W.A.No.546 of 2010 was dismissed as withdrawn by the First Bench of this Court. On 13. 2010 the petitioner filed earlier writ petition before this Court on the very same day the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court and upheld the orders of de-registration dated 12. 2009. The above attitude reveals the intention of the petitioner to get an order somehow. 12. For the above said reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.