Judgment : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to allot the vacant shops available in Koyambedu Kamaraj Flower Market, Chennai in F/C-18 or F/C 48I to the petitioner herein. 2. Heard Mr. A.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a flower vendor and has vacated the shop at the instance of the Chief Executive Officer, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. The petitioner stated that since there are two vacant shops in Koyambedu Kamaraj Flower Market, he is entitled to get a shop allotted to him as he was evicted by the second respondent. Since his earlier representation dated 28.10.2011 was not considered for allotment of a shop, he filed W.P.No.11350 of 2012 and this Court by an order dated 24.4.2012 directed the second respondent to consider the representation on merits, if permissible under law, as expeditiously as possible. As the second respondent has not passed any orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2011, the writ petition has come up with the present writ petition seeking a directing to the respondents to allot the vacant shops available in Koyambedu Kamaraj Flower Market, Chennai. 4. The first respondent contended that the vacant shops in Koyambedu Perishable Market are only allotted through a drawal of lot and the petitioner has no right to claim the same by filing a writ petition. It is also stated that Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority cannot consider the petitioner's representation due to non availability of shops. Even though the petitioner sought for a Mandamus for allotment of shops, the prayer in this writ petition is couched differently from the earlier one. But the prayers in the earlier writ petition and the present writ petition are one and the same. 5. When this Court has already passed an order, directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on merits on the representation of the petitioner, since they failed to do so, the petitioner again approached by way of this writ petition and seeking this Court to pass an order to consider his representation dated 28.10.2011 which was the subject matter of the earlier writ petition, the present writ petition cannot be entertained. If the petitioner has got any grievance that the earlier order has not been complied with, his remedy is not by way of filing another writ petition, seeking a similar prayer even though the prayer is worded differently. I find no merits in the present writ petition and hence the same is rejected. This Court expected that the respondents will comply with the earlier orders of this Court dated 24.4.2012 and communicate the same to the petitioner, without any further delay. 6. With the above observations, the writ petition is closed. No costs.