ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.— Repeated writ petitions seeking for issue of a writ of mandamus is not a solution when a public authority disregards or disobeys an earlier order of the Court. 2. In the present writ petitions, complaint of the Petitioner is that notwithstanding a order/direction by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 18.3.2009 passed in W.P. No. 2241/2007, reading as under: The question involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, ILR (2006) KAR 318 Hence writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforecited judgment. the Respondents Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'the BDA') and its Special Land Acquisition Officer have remained inactive and have not disposed of a representation dated 11.5.2009 that had been submitted by the Petitioner, copy produced at Annexure-D to the petition, though initially in response to this representation an inspection was fixed as per communication dated 28.6.2010, copy produced at Annexure-E to the petition and though thereafter a spot inspection did take place on 30.6.2010, without passing any further orders on the representation, it is given to the understanding of the Petitioner that the authorities are taking steps to form a layout including the subject land wherein the Petitioner is claiming interest and therefore, has approached this Court seeking for the following prayer: a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the representation dated 11.5.2009 Annexures-D filed by the Petitioner as directed by this Hon'ble Court reported in The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, ILR (2006) KAR 318 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy v. BDA decided on 31.5.2010. b. Issue a writ or order or direction that until consideration of the representation of the Petitioner, the possession of the Petitioner in respect of the schedule property shall not be disturbed. 3. State of Karnataka and Another, ILR (2006) KAR 318 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy v. BDA decided on 31.5.2010. b. Issue a writ or order or direction that until consideration of the representation of the Petitioner, the possession of the Petitioner in respect of the schedule property shall not be disturbed. 3. Appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submission of Sri R. Nataraj, learned Counsel is that the Respondents cannot act in a pre-emptive manner to defeat the rights of the Petitioner; that the conduct of the Respondents is virtually in contravention of the orders/directions issued not only by the Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, ILR (2006) KAR 318 but also the law declared by the Supreme Court later in an appeal at the instance of persons like the Petitioner in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy and Ors. v. Bangalore Development Authority and Ors. reported in (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 129 and even when a learned Single Judge of this Court has issued directions as per Annexure-C; the Respondents are not complying with this order, but are taking measures to form a layout etc., it has become necessary for the Petitioner to approach this Court seeking for relief; that the Respondents should be called upon to answer as to why the representation of the Petitioner and suitable orders passed or directions issued to the Respondents has not been considered. 4. It is not necessary to examine the merits of the claim made by the Petitioner in these writ petitions for the reason as indicated in the beginning of this order, if one order or direction of this Court is disobeyed by not giving effect to an order of this Court or any other writ passed earlier by the very court or elsewhere in spite of a positive direction/court order, it is open for the affected to set in motion the contempt proceedings and in a situation of this nature filing repeated writ petitions is not a solution in law nor should this Court, keep issuing repeated directions in respect of the same subject matter which only belittles the authority of this Court and lowers the efficacy of writ jurisdiction. A public authority, which is bound obey the orders passed by this Court and is mandated to give effect or implement a direction issued by this Court, fails to do so, it does so only on the pain of committing contempt of court orders. Therefore while it is open to the petition to workout his rights and remedies, yet another direction cannot be issued. 5. Though Mr. Nataraj, learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to bring to the notice of the court some other developments and the factual aspects contained in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy cited supra, it is not necessary for this Court to examine such factual details for the reason this Court cannot embark upon to look into the details of the order of the Supreme Court as to in whose favour what directions is issued by the Supreme Court in the case cited supra and assuming that to be so, it is open for the Petitioner to work out his rights elsewhere in law, but no writ of mandamus can be issued on such basis by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed without prejudice to the rights the Petitioner may have, for working out that rights elsewhere, as can be in law.