K.Vishwa Prasad vs Andhra Pradesh Northern Power ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2465 Tel

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

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

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