JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed for the following relief: “…..to issue a proper writ, order or orders particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 in not providing the Elephant ‘Rajani’ for conducting the Procession of Giarhveen Shareef of Hazrath Ghousee-Azam Dastagir (Reh.) while providing the same to other processions like Bonalu and Moharrum by falsely stating that the Elephant ‘Rajani’ is not trained for procession through Memo dated 07-03-2017 is arbitrary, illegal and discrimination as the said Elephant is provided to the petitioner society since 1995 onwards and also to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not implementing the orders of respondent No.1 in Memo No. 3371/For 1(I)/2018 dated 08-11-2018 and 03-10-2018 as arbitrary and illegal….” 2. It may be noted that in the judgment dated 21.09.2017, the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of W.A.No.1358 of 2017 had categorically held that Principal Secretary to Government is not entitled to issue a Memo to relax the administrative order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.132 dated 22.12.2009 according to which, the animals cannot be permitted for procession. A Memo dated 14.09.2018 came to be issued by Special Chief Secretary to Government permitting the Elephant ‘Rajani’ to be provided for Muharram Procession of Bibi Ka Alam from Alawa Bibi, Dabeerpura, Hyderabad, on 21.10.2018. Likewise, vide Memo, dated 13.07.2018, the elephant was also provided for Bonalu procession on 30.07.2018, 05.08.2018 and 06.08.2018. The above said two Memos were issued contrary to G.O.Ms.No.132 dated 22.12.2009 as well as the specific law declared by the Division Bench of this Court. 3. The cause of action for filing the present writ petition by the petitioner-Hazrath Ghouse-e-Azam Welfare Society is that discrimination is being shown towards it as relaxation is being effected and the same facility is extended to others. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not considering its representation for providing the Elephant ‘Rajani’ for Moharrum procession and the same is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not considering its representation for providing the Elephant ‘Rajani’ for Moharrum procession and the same is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the counter-affidavit, respondent No.2 asserts that there is no trained Mahout in Nehru Zoological Park, Hyderabad, who had the ability to control the elephant, when it gets disturbed by issuing certain commands; that the elephant ‘Rajani’ belongs to erstwhile Nizam Trust; that at request of Nizam Trust, the same is being maintained by Nehru Zoological Park, Hyderabad; that except the elephant ‘Rajani’, the other five elephants are wild, untamed and untrained; that it is being looked after by Zoo animal keepers, who are not trained as Mahout, and their duties are limited to feed and clean the elephant; that the elephants are showcased in an enclosure of Acs.8.00 of land away from the visitors; that in the procession, the crowd move close to the elephant causing a lot of disturbance to it and when it gets disturbed, there is no way to control the same and it causes danger to the public at large; that so far as providing elephant ‘Rajani’ to Moharrum and Bonalu festivals is concerned, the same is being done at the request of the Nizam Trust; that the Central Zoo Authority was constituted by Government of India under Section 38A of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, to regulate the functioning of all Zoological Parks in the country and the maintenance of animal health care and facilities; that in the meetings held by the Central Zoo Authority, recommendations were communicated to all the Zoological Parks in the country for strict compliance; that on the recommendations of the Central Zoo Authority, the State Government constituted ‘Zoos and Parks Authority of Telangana’ vide G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 02.08.2014 to develop the Zoos and Parks in the State; that the governing Board decided not to spare Zoo elephants for processions and to implement strictly G.O.Ms.No.132 dated 22.12.2009 issued for dispensing with the use of animals for processions except for traditional Bonalu and Moharrum Procession, as obligation by the State to the Nizam Trust; that the authorities are not arranging Zoo elephants for any other processions as there is ban by the Government on sparing animals for processions or celebrations; that the Elephant ‘Rajani’ during procession in 2018 had underwent enormous stress and became sick and after returning to the Zoo, the same had underwent treatment and thus, it was not obeying the commands of the animal keepers; that the Deputy Director, Veterinary, Nehru Zoological Park, Hyderabad, had reported that the condition of the elephant is not up to the mark for participating in processions, thus, it is not advisable to provide the Elephant ‘Rajani’ for the processions; that thereafter, by communication, dated 27.12.2018, the Chief Wildlife Warden requested the Government not to provide the Elephant ‘Rajani’ from Zoo Park for processions; that though a Memo dated 08.11.2018 came to be issued in favour of the petitioner, as a matter of fact, on 06.11.2018, the Forest Department had addressed a letter to the Special Chief Secretary to Government apprising the difficulties in providing the elephant with a request to implement the ban of use of animals in processions imposed by the Central Zoo Authority, Government of India and a further request to not to accord permission for using of elephants of Zoo Park, Hyderabad, in religious processions in future, in the interests of compliance with Zoo Rules, administrative difficulties and safety of the elephant and general public. 6. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit asserting that the authorities have supplied the Elephant ‘Rajani’ to the petitioner Society from 1995 to 2016 and thereafter, discrimination is being shown to it; that there may not be special training for elephant kept in Nehru Zoological Park, but in the processions, for which, the elephants are being supplied, there was no untoward incident happened for all these years; that the Nehru Zoological Park is under the control of the Government and the Zoo authorities cannot disobey and refuse to implement the orders of the Government, particularly, Memo dated 08.11.2018 issued in favour of the petitioner; that not supplying the elephant to the petitioner when it was supplied to others, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; that a large sum of Rs.31,000/- was paid by way of challan and also approached the Police authorities for maintaining law and order in the course of procession; that though it is the submission of the respondent authorities that the Elephant ‘Rajani’ was not well, curiously, the same was supplied for Bonalu and Moharrum processions and that the writ appeal came to be disposed of on the ground that the Elephant ‘Rajani’ was not doing well. 7. Having considered the respective submissions, at the outset, it may be noted that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1358 of 2017, in the context of dealing with the petitioner’s claim, had categorically found fault with the Government in issuing the Memos relaxing the rigour contained in G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 22.12.2009. It is well settled that in constitutional scheme of the things, power to issue executive instructions in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India vests with the Government and the Principal Secretary, who is the only Officer working under the Government, has no authority or power to issue a Memo granting relaxation to such Government Order issued by order and in the name of the Governor. A Memo does not partake the Government Order issued in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India. For the best known reasons, Principal Secretary to Government had made a mistake in transgressing the law declared by this Court in W.A.No.1358 of 2017, by issuing a Memo dated 13.07.2018, providing the elephant ‘Rajani’ for Moharrum and Bonalu festivals that are being organised by the State. For the best known reasons, Principal Secretary to Government had made a mistake in transgressing the law declared by this Court in W.A.No.1358 of 2017, by issuing a Memo dated 13.07.2018, providing the elephant ‘Rajani’ for Moharrum and Bonalu festivals that are being organised by the State. The transgression of the orders of this Court virtually amounts to committing contempt by the Special Chief Secretary to Government concerned. As the issuance of such Memos being contrary to the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner cannot seek directions once again to transgress the law declared by this Court on the ground of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that merely because on an earlier occasion, there is a mistake committed in according permission, which is not permissible, there cannot be any direction, much less, issuance of a writ of mandamus to extend the same benefit, which is impermissible, in favour of the petitioner. Apart from the said reason, in the counter-affidavit, respondent No.2 had categorically made a reference to the directions issued by the Central Zoo Authority constituted under Section 38A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, regulating the functioning of all the Zoological Parks in the country, which are required to be adhered to. It is true that Temples in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala own the elephants, which are trained, and except few temples in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, there is no much scope for owning of the elephants by any of the Temples and there appears to be no private individuals owning the trained elephants. 8. In the light of the categorical stand of respondent No.2 in the counter-affidavit that there are no trained elephants, at a given point of time, even assuming that a trained elephant is available, this Court cannot take the risk of directing the respondents to provide elephant to the petitioner for Moharrum procession or to anyone for any procession. 8. In the light of the categorical stand of respondent No.2 in the counter-affidavit that there are no trained elephants, at a given point of time, even assuming that a trained elephant is available, this Court cannot take the risk of directing the respondents to provide elephant to the petitioner for Moharrum procession or to anyone for any procession. At any rate, at this point of time, the categorical stand of the respondents is that there is no Mahout and only animal keepers are attending the day-to-day affairs of the elephant, as such, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued, particularly, in contravention of the Government Order merely on the ground that on an earlier occasion, the respondents authorities have provided elephants either on account of the mistake or by deliberately violating the specific G.O. prohibiting providing of elephants for processions. It may be noted that the very owner of the elephant in their letter dated 06.03.2010, had refused to take back the elephant on the ground that they are unable to take care of the elephant. In the circumstances, there cannot be any obligation on the part of the State even to give the elephant to the Nizam Trust, which had made over the elephant ‘Rajani’ to the Zoo authorities on account of their inability to maintain the same, especially, when an offer is being made by the State to return the elephant to the Nizam Trust. It may be noted that huge expenditure is involved in maintaining an elephant and as it is the State, which is taking care of the same, the Nizam Trust by merely passing on the elephant would not have any superior right than the State. 9. For all these reasons and in the light of the subsequent developments, particularly the judgment dated 21.09.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1358 of 2017, no mandamus can be issued to the respondents to extend the facility in favour of the petitioner as it is the categorical stand of the State that in future, no elephant of the Zoo would be made available to anyone in violation of the stand taken by the State in G.O.Ms.No.132 dated 22.12.2009. 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall also stand dismissed. 11. There shall be no order as to costs.