Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Unknown vs 22 on 24 June, 2022
22
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE: W.A.No.447 of 2019
PROCEEDINGS SHEET
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NOTE
No.
24.06.2022 (Through physical mode)
I.A.No.1 of 2022
This application has been preferred seeking clarification of
the judgment dated 15.03.2022 in W.A.No.383 of 2019 and
batch, to the effect that in the operative portion of the judgment
rendered by this Court, reference to O.P.No.66 of 2019 pending
before the APERC has been inadvertently omitted even though
the appellant in W.A.No.447 of 2019, who is the applicant in this
application, has prayed for quashing of O.P.No.66 of 2019.
Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr.
Aniket Prasoon and Ms. Priya Dhankhar, learned counsel,
appearing for the applicant, would submit that in paragraph 19 of
the writ appeal, it is clearly averred that the present applicant
was arrayed as respondent No.13 in O.P.No.66 of 2019 before
the APERC and in paragraph 21, it is prayed that this Court may
graciously be pleased to quash the proceedings in O.P.No.66 of
2019 filed by respondent No.-4-DISCOMs, however, inadvertently
in relief clause 29(ii), prayer has been made for quashing the
proceedings in O.P.No.67 of 2019 instead of O.P.No.66 of 2019.
Further, it is submitted that the present applicant is not a party in
O.P.No.67 of 2019, but he was arrayed as respondent No.13 in
O.P.No.66 of 2019. Therefore, necessary clarification is sought
for.
Mr. S. Sri Ram, learned Senior counsel/Advocate General
appearing for DISCOMs, would submit that this Court had
consciously omitted quashing of O.P.No.66 of 2019 for the reason
that challenging the proceedings in O.P.No.66 of 2019, some of
the respondents therein have preferred appeal before the
appellate Tribunal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of
the considered view that in the judgment rendered by us, no
such ground has been pleaded by either of the parties that
because of pendency of the appeal before the appellate Tribunal,
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NOTE
No.
the writ appeal is not maintainable. Moreover, when similar O.Ps
i.e., O.P.No.17 and 67 of 2019 have already been quashed by
this Court, it would be highly unreasonable to deny the relief to
the applicant only on account of inadvertent error in not making
the reference of O.A.No.66 of 2019 in the prayer of the writ
appeal.
In fact, the applicant not being a party in O.P.No.67 of 2019,
there was no occasion for the applicant to have prayed for
quashing O.P.No.67 of 2019 in W.A.No.447 of 2019.
Accordingly, we allow the application clarifying that the
proceedings in O.P.No.66 of 2019 before the APERC shall also
stand quashed along with O.P.No.17 of 2019 & 67 of 2019.
Registry is directed to mention O.P.No.66 of 2019 after
"O.P.No.17 of 2019" and before the words "and O.P.No.67 of
2019" in paragraph No.101 of the judgment dated 15.03.2022 in
W.A.No.383 of 2019 and batch, and issue amended copy afresh.
I.A.No.2 of 2022
In view of the fact that I.A.No.1 of 2022 is disposed of, there
is no need to pass any orders in this application.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
Nn
