ORDER 1. On behalf of the petitioner, this public interest litigation petition is preferred for issuing the appropriate writ against the authorities of the respondent for the following reliefs :- (i) That, the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to remove the illegal encroachment of respondents No.9 to 11 and others by constructing pakka concrete road/construction, over whole public pathway i.e. on Survey No.793 within a stipulated period of three months. (ii) That, any other just suitable any proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner including cost of petition advocate fee etc. 2. Having heard the petitioner's counsel, keeping in view the argument advanced, we have carefully gone through the petition as well as the papers annexed with the same. Mere perusal of the Annexure P-2, the order dated 13.3.2013 passed by this Court in the public interest litigation Writ Petition No.3013/2012 with the relief which is claimed in the present petition and the relief which was also prayed in the aforesaid writ petition as well as on consideration of such order dated 13.3.2013, the same was disposed of in the following manner :- “From the aforesaid facts of the case and the facts mentioned in the application filed by the respondents No.1 to 9, it is clear that earlier there was encroachment on the passage as pleaded by the petitioner, however, the aforesaid encroachment has been removed by the authorities. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner denied the fact that there is no encroachment at present. When the authorities have submitted that there is no encroachment, then this Court cannot decide the factual dispute, however, if there is any grievance of the petitioner and if the petitioner thinks that the encroachment is still not removed, he can very well approach to the Collector, SDO and Tahsildar i.e. respondents No.5 to 9 for his grievance and the aforesaid authorities may do the needful. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.” 3. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.” 3. Subsequent to the aforesaid order when the direction of this Court was not complied with then on such background at the instance of the present petitioner, a Contempt Petition No.541/2013 by impleading concerning officer of the State of Madhya Pradesh with a prayer to punish them under the provision of contempt of the Court on account of violation of direction of the aforesaid order dated 13.3.2013 Annexure P-2 was filed and on consideration the then Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.11.2013 has again disposed of in the following manner :- “As per the respondents, the order has been complied with and the encroachment has been removed. However, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that still there is encroachment. In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the Collector shall take a decision that whether there is any encroachment over the place as alleged by the petitioner or not. The petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity by the Collector. The decision be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.” 4. Now this petition is preferred stating that in spite the direction to decide the representation in the order dated 13.3.2013 Annexure P-2 and the order dated 30.11.2013 passed in the aforesaid contempt petition Annexure P-3 within prescribe period, no steps were taken by the State authorities to remove the alleged encroachment from the disputed side and in such premises, the instant petition is filed for the abovementioned relief. 5. We are of the considered view that considering the subject matter earlier by entertaining the public interest litigation writ petition, the same was disposed of with some direction to the State authorities vide order dated 13.3.2013 and such direction was not complied with then on filing the contempt petition on behalf of the petitioner the same was disposed of with the abovementioned observations and directions by fixing a period of six weeks and it is also apparent that within prescribed period of six weeks no decision was taken by the State authorities and in that circumstances the petitioner has come with fresh petition. 6. 6. We are of the considered view that if the direction of the order passed in the earlier stage in writ petition or contempt petition have not been complied with by the authorities then in that circumstances there is no fresh cause of action to file the fresh writ petition only in view of the aforesaid earlier orders Annexures P-2 and P-3. The petitioner has remedy to file the appropriate contempt petition with appropriate relief on account of non-compliance of the direction of this Court. 7. In the aforesaid premises, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter only on the aforesaid technical ground regarding entertainability, this petition is hereby dismissed. 8. However it is made clear that petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act or in other provision permissible under the law to comply with the direction of this Court passed in the aforesaid writ petition as well as contempt petition. 9. There shall be no order as to costs.