Items No.11-12
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
W.A.Nos.486 and 502 of 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. On 03.02.2021, Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5 in W.A.No.486 of 2020
had pointed out how the appellants/writ petitioners have been repeatedly approaching the court for the same relief by filing separate writ petitions. He had stated that aggrieved by the Memo dated 23.04.2012, the appellants/writ petitioners had filed W.P.Nos.12827 of 2012 and 13322 of 2012 that were disposed of by a common order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge with a direction issued to the respondents to redo the exercise of fixing seniority of the appellants/writ petitioners and other Assistant Engineers. Thereafter, while the said exercise was still being undertaken by the respondents, the impugned order came to be passed in W.P.Nos.19264 of 2012 and 23576 of 2012 filed by the appellants/writ petitioners. At that stage, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners had sought time to obtain instructions from his briefing counsel. At his request, the matters were adjourned to 24.03.2021.
2. On 24.03.2021, learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners had again sought an adjournment which was duly granted W.A.Nos.486 & 502 of 2020 Page 1 of 3 and the matters were adjourned to 09.06.2021. In the meantime, the appellants/writ petitioners were directed to file an affidavit enclosing therewith the reliefs prayed for in W.P.Nos.12827 of 2012 and 13322 of 2012 along with the orders passed thereon vis-a-vis the relief prayed for in W.P.No.19264 of 2012 for purposes of comparison. The appellants/writ petitioners were also called upon to explain how they had filed a subsequent writ petition based on the same cause of action, in the light of the common order dated 25.11.2019 passed in the earlier set of writ petitions filed by them.
3. On 09.06.2021, learned proxy counsel had appeared for learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners and sought accommodation on the ground that compliance could not be made by filing the affidavit, as directed and the arguing counsel for the appellants was indisposed and unable to appear. Mr. G. Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel had informed the court that learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners was hale and healthy and was appearing virtually before court No.9 on the same day. In view of the aforesaid conduct of learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners, costs of Rs.10,000/- were imposed on him to be deposited with the Telangana Bar Association.
4. We are informed today that costs of Rs.10,000/- have been deposited with the Telagnana Bar Association on 11.08.2021. Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners further states that the appellants/writ petitioners have preferred review applications against the common order dated 25.11.2019 passed in W.P.Nos.12827 W.A.Nos.486 & 502 of 2020 Page 2 of 3 of 2012 and 13322 of 2012 which are pending before the learned Single Judge. He therefore seeks leave to withdraw the present appeals.
5. The present appeals are dismissed as withdrawn along with the pending applications, if any, while cautioning the appellants/writ petitioners and the learned counsel to be more careful in future as their conduct in the instant case amounts to deliberately misleading the court.
______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ ______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 24.08.2021 JSU/PLN W.A.Nos.486 & 502 of 2020 Page 3 of 3