APHC010067502019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) B FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA REVIEW I.A. Nos. 4 OF 2022 AND 2 OF 2023 IN W.P. No.3007 OF 2019 AND W.P. Nos.19320 OF 2019, 18398 OF 2022. 21499 OF 2022 AND 21517 OF 2022 REVIEW I.A. Nos. 4 OF 2022 in W.P. No.3007/2019 Between: M/s. Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Somajiguda, Hyderabad ...Petitioner/Petitioner AND 1. M/s.Sri Siddhartha Infratech and Services, Near Bharatiya Vidhya Bhavan, Road No.84, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033 represented by its Managing Partner Bandaru Narasimharao, S/o.Panduranga Rao, aged about 57 years. 2. Recovery Officer-ll, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. 3. Central Bank of India, rep. By its Senior Manager, Kakinada Branch, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...Respondents/Respondents Petition under Section 114 of CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the @ High Court may be pleased to review the orders of this Hon’ble Court dt.12.04.2022 in W.P. No.3007 of 2019. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs. V. UMA DEVI Counsel for Respondent No.1 : M/s. BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for Respondent No.2 : SRI P. PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for Respondent No.3 : SRI CH. SIVA REDDY REVIEW I.A. No. 2 OF 2023 in W.P. No.3007 of 2019 Between; Aishwarya Chakkilam, D/o. Raghuram Chakkilam, Aged 27 Years, Occ: OSD Telangana Government, MSc London School of Economics, R/o. H.No.6-3- 662/16/1 First Floor, Somajiguda, Jaffer Ali Bhag, Hyderabad, Telangana. ...Review Petitioner AND 1. M/s. Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Limited, represented by its Managing Director Somajiguda, Hyderabad ...Respondent/RespondentNo.3 2. M/s.Sri Siddhartha Infratech and Service Private Limited, Near Bharatiya Vidhya Bhavan, Road No.84, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033 represented by its Managing Partner Bandaru Narasimharao, S/o.Panduranga Rao, aged about 57 years. ...Respondent/Writ Petitioner 3. Recovery Officer-ll, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. 4. Central Bank of India, rep. By its Senior Manager, Kakinada Branch, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...Respondents Petition under Section 114 R/w Order XL VII rule 1 of CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to Review the Order, dated.12.04.2022 in W.P. No.3007 of 2019. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHIKKUDU PRABHAKAR Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Mr. V. LIMA DEVI Counsel for Respondent No.2 : M/s. BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for Respondent No.3 : SRI CH SIVA REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.4 : SRI P. PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA WRIT PETITION NO: 3007 OF 2019 Between: M/s.Sri Siddhartha Infratech and Service Private Limited, Near Bharatiya Vidhya Bhavan, Road No.84, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033 representedby its Managing Partner Bandaru Narasimharao, S/o.Panduranga Rao, aged about 57 years. ...Petitioner AND 1. Recovery Officer-ll, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. 2. Central Bank of India, rep. By its Senior Manager, Kakinada Branch, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3. M/s The Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Somajiguda, Hyderabad ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ and quash the impugned order of the 1 St respondent in R.P.No.14/2009 in O.A.No.9/2006/754 dated 12-02-2019 and consequently grant 15 days time to the petitioner for payment / deposit of the balance bid amount pursuant to the e-auction dated 14-06-2018, from the date of receipt of the order and direct the 1®‘ respondent to issue sale certificate to the petitioner on such deposit / payment. H lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation and effect of the impugned order dated. 12-02-2019 in R.P.No.14/2009 in O.A.No.9/2006/754 of the 1®‘ respondent. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Between: Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Staff and Workers Union, Rep. By its General Secretary, Dasari Krupanandam, S/o. Late Veerraju, Aged about 58 Years, Occ: Presently Nil, R/o. H.No.4-3-39/G, Bojjavari Thota, Pithapuram, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner/Third Party AND 1. Recovery Officer-il, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. 2. Central Bank of India, rep. By its Senior Manager, Kakinada Branch, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3. M/s. The Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 4. M/s.Sri Siddhartha Infratech and Service Private Limited, Near Bharatiya Vidhya Bhavan, Road No.84, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad- 500033 represented by its Managing Partner Bandaru Narasimharao, S/o.Panduranga Rao, aged about 57 years. ...Respondents/Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Recall the orders passed in W.P.No. 3007 of 2019, dated 12.04.2022. •5 lA NO: 3 OF 2022 Between: Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Staff and Workers Union, Rep. By its General Secretary, Dasari Krupanandarh, S/o. Late Veerraju, Aged about 58 Years, Occ: Presently Nil, R/o. H.No.4-3-39/G, Bojjavari Thota, Pithapuram, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh. ...PetItioner/ThIrd Party AND 1. Recovery Officer-ll, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. 2. Central Bank of India, rep. By its Senior Manager, Kakinada Branch, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3. M/s. The Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 4. M/s.Sri Siddhartha Infratech and Service Private Limited, Near Bharatiya Vidhya Bhavan, Road No.84, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad- 500033 represented by its Managing Partner Bandaru Narasimharao, S/o.Panduranga Rao, aged about 57 years. ...Respondents/Respondents is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 herein i.e., the Recovery Officer-ll, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam not to issue the sale confirmation certificate in respect of the subject property in favour of the Writ Petitioner/Auction Purchaser. Petition under Section 151 CPC lA NO: 5 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1®* respondent Recovery officer to forthwith register a sale certificate in the name of the petitioner in respect of the auction r' land in RP. 14 of 2009 in OA.9 of 2006 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhaptnam i.e 42 acres 36 cents in pithapuram town, East Godavari District which is originally owned by the 3’^^ respondent wherein, without any further delay and at the expense of the petitioner in so far as the stamp duty registration charges and concerned. lA NO: 6 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Sale Certificate issued by respondent No.1 vide Proceedings bearing No.RP/14/2009dt.06.06.2022, pending disposal of the lA, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the order dated 04-08-2023 passed in Review lA.No. 4 of 2022 in WP.No. 3007 of 2019 and dismiss the review petition with costs. lA NO: 3 OF 2023 Between: Aishwarya Chakkilam, D/o. Raghuram Chakkilam, Aged 27 Years, Occ: OSD Telangana Government, MSc London School of Economics, R/o. H.No.6-3- 662/16/1 First Floor, Somajiguda, Jaffer Ali Bhag, Hyderabad, Telangana. ...Review Petitioner AND 1. M/s. Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ...Respondent/Respondent No.3 T- 2. M/s.Sri Siddhartha Infratech and Service Private Limited Bharatiya Vidhya Bhavan, Road No.84, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad- 500033 represented by its Managing Partner Bandaru Narasimharao, S/o.Panduranga Rao, aged about 57 years. Near ...Writ Petitioner/Respondent 3. Recovery Officer-ll, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. 4. Central Bank of India, rep. By its Senior Manager, Kakinada Branch, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders of the earlier Division bench of this Hon'ble court dated 12-04-2022 in WP no. 3007 of 2019 pending disposal of the above review petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Between: Aishwarya Chakkilam, D/o. Raghuram Chakkilam, Aged 27 Years, Occ: OSD Telangana Government, MSc London School of Economics, R/o. H.No.6-3- 662/16/1 First Floor, Somajiguda, Jaffer Ali Bhag, Hyderabad, Telangana. ...Petitioner AND 1. M/s. Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2. M/s.Sri Siddhartha Infratech and Service Private Limited, Near Bharatiya Vidhya Bhavan, Road No.84, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad- 500033 represented by its Managing Partner Bandaru Narasimharao, S/o.Panduranga Rao, aged about 57 years. 3. Recovery Officer-ll, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. 4. Central Bank of India, rep. By its Senior Manager, Kakinada Branch Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the Additional prayed that this material papers and may be read as part and parcel of the Review Petition No. 2 of 2023 in W.P.No. 3007 of 2019. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: M/s. The Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ...Petitioner AND 1. M/s.Sri Siddhartha Infratech and Service Private Limited, Near Bharatiya Vidhya Bhavan, Road No.84, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad- 500033 represented by its Managing Partner Bandaru Narasimharao, S/o.Panduranga Rao, aged about 57 years. 2. Recovery Officer-ll, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. 3. Central Bank of India, rep. By its Senior Manager, Kakinada Branch, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...Respondents is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to recall the order in so far as directing the petitioner to deposit of the 50% of the amount covered by EP.No.1/2019 in ID.No.58/2006 is concerned in review I.A.No.4/2022 in W.P.No.3007/2019 dt.04-08-2023. Petition under Section 151 CPC Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs. V. LIMA DEVI Counsel for Respondent No.1 : M/s. BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for Respondent No.2 : SRI P. PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for Respondent No.3 : SRI CH SIVA REDDY APHC010402972019 WRIT PETITION NO: 19320 OF 2019 Between: The Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Limited,, Pithapuram, East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Director. ...Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Joint Secretary, Labour Employment Training and Factories (OP) Department, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. Commissioner of Labour, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Door No. 33-7-6-8-14, Paturi Papaiah Street X Roads, Sitarapuram, Vijayawada - 500002. 3. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 4. Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Staff and Workers Union, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. Secretariat, ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records' connected with and related to the Award Dated 13-09-2017 in I.D. No. 58/2006 on the file of the 3rd Respondent and Notificat- on vide G.O. Rt. No. 706 Dated 08-12-2017, of the ISt Respondent by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate Writ, Order of Direction and set aside or quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and well beyond the scope of reference for adjudication. 10 lA NO: 1 OF 2019 is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all proceedings in EP No.1 of 2019 in ID No.58 of 2006 on the file of XII Addl. District Judge Pithapuram filed by the 4 Respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition. Petition under Section 151 CPC th lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to 'suspend' the Notification vide G.O. Rt. No. 705, Dated 08-12-2017, and the connected Award Dated 13-09-2017 in I.D. No. 58/2006 on the file of the 3'^ Respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Between: Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Staff and Workers Union, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner/4*'’ Respondent AND 1. The Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Limited, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Director. ...1®* Respondent/Writ Petitioner 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Joint Secretary, Labour Employment Training and Factories (OP) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. fl 3. Commissioner of Labour, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Door No. 33-7-6-8-14, Paturi Papaiah Street X Roads, Sitarapuram, Vijayawada - 500002. 4. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the order passed in lA No.2 of 2019 in WP 19320 of 2019 dated 02-12-2019. lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Between: Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Staff and Workers Union, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner^*” Respondent AND 1. The Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Limited, Pithapuram, East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Director. ...1®* Respondent/Writ Petitioner 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Joint Secretary, Labour Employment Training and Factories (OP) Department Velagapudi, Amaravati. 3. Commissioner of Labour, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Door No. 33-7-6-8-14, Paturi Papaiah Street X Roads, Sitarapuram, Vijayawada - 500002. Secretariat, 4. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents t-L Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the order passed in lA No.1 of 2019 in WP 19320 of 2019 dated-02-12-2019. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the E.P.1/2019 in ID.No. 58 of 2006 on the file of Court of Xllth Addl. District Judge, Pithapuram. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs. V. LIMA DEVI Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for Respondent No.4 : SRI NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY APHC010310022022 WRIT PETITION NO: 18398 OF 2022 Between: M/s. Sri Siddhartha Infratech And Services (I) Private Limited, rep. by its Managing Partner/Director, Bandaru Narasimha Rao, S/o. Pandu Ranga Rao, aged about 59 years, R/o. Road No.84, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad ...Petitioner AND 1. Sub Registrar, Pithapuram No.2 , East Godavari District. 2. The District Registrar, East Godavari District, Kakinada, 3. The Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps Department, Government of AP., at Vijayawada. L3 4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary, Revenue (Registration and Stamps) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 5. The Recovery Officer-ll, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondent 1 to 3 in not registering the sale certificate issued by the 5*^ respondent in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring 42.34 acres of Pithapuram Village in Sy.Nos. 565, 566, 630, 631 and 633 and keeping the same in the pending Registration Document status vide P.No. 1152 of 2022 with CS No. 6487 of 2022 is arbitrary and illegal and oppose to the law laid down by this court WP No. 1300 of 2021 dated 2.9.2021 and direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to forthwith register the pending document i.e. the sale certificate on the basis of the auction value and not on the basis of the market value of the subject land admeasuring 42.34 acres of Pithapuram village in Sy.Nos. 565, 566, 630, 631 and 633 and release the same in favour of the petitioner with regular registration document number in accordance with law and without insisting upon the Petitioner to make payment of stamps duty and Registration Fee the market value and without reference to the orders in lA NO. 2 of 2021 in WP No. 19320 of 2019 dated 25.2.2022 so as to enable the petitioner to enjoy the title and Proprietary right over the subject land. on lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct respondents 1 to 3 to forthwith register the sale certificate issued by the 5**^ respondent to the petitioner with regard to the land admeasuring 42.34 acres of Pithapuram Village in Sy.Nos. 565, 566, lA 630, 631 and 633 on levy of stamp duty and registration fees on the auction value of Rs. 28,50,00,000/- and not on the market value of the land and effect registration forthwith and release the registered sale certificate to the petitioner duly giving the registration document number. lA NO: 3 OF 2022 Between: 1. Sub Registrar, Pithapuram No.2 , East Godavari District. 2. The District Registrar, East Godavari District, Kakinada, 3. The Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps Department, Government of AP., at Vijayawada. ...Petitioners/Respondents AND 1. M/s. Sri Siddhartha Infratech And Services (I) Private Limited, rep. by its Managing Partner/Director, Bandaru Narasimha Rao, S/o. Ranga Rao, aged about 59 years, R/o. Road No.84, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Pandu ...Respondent/Petitioner 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary, Revenue (Registration and Stamps) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 3. The Recovery Officer-ll, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. ...Respondents/Respondents (R-2 & R-3 Is not necessary party In this writ petition) Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 1.7.2022 passed in WP.No. 18398/2022 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS Counsel for Respondent No.5 : SRI P.S.P. SURESH KUMAR APHC010355472022 WRIT PETITION NO: 21499 OF 2022 Between: M/s. Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Limited, Rep. by its Director, Gera Mohan Babu, S/o. G.V.Swamy, aged 62 years Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Registrar, Stamps and Registration, Pithapuram. East Godavari District. The Recovery Officer-I, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. Central Bank of India, Rep. by its Senior Manager, Kakinada Branch, Kakinada, East Godavari District. M/s. Sri Siddhartha Infratech and Services Private Ltd, Near Bharatiya Vidhya Bhavan, Road No.84, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033, Rep.by its Managing Partner Shri. Bandaru Narasimha Rao S/o. Panduranga Rao, aged about 57 years. 2. 3. 4. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^^ respondent in issuing the Sale Certificate vide Proceedings bearing No. RP/14/2009, dated 06.06.2022, pending review petition, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. tC) lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Sale Certificate issued by respondent No.2 vide Proceedings bearing No. RP/14/2009 dated 06.06.2022, pending review petition pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs. V. LIMA DEVI Counsel for Respondent No.1 : GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Counsel for Respondent No.3 : SRl CH. SIVA REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.4 : M/s. BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES APHC010355922022 WRIT PETITION NO: 21517 OF 2022 Between: M/s. Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Limited, Rep. by its Director, Gera Mohan Babu, S/o. G.V. Swamy, Aged about 62 years, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Central Bank of India CBI, Rep by its Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Central Bank of India, Chandramukhi, Point, Mumbai. 2. The Executive Director Recovery Central Bank of India, Chandramukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai. Nariman n 3. The General Manager Recovery Central Bank of India, Chandramukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai. 4. The Field General Manager Central Bank of India, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad. 5. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 6. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India Kakinada, East Godavari District. 7. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Rep by its Recovery Officer-ll, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 8. The Sub Registrar of Stamps and Registration, Stamps and Registrations Dept., Pithapuram, Near Kakinada, East Godavari Dist., ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not processing the petitioner's long-pending application evincing interest in the OTS Scheme and also not returned the documents pertaining to the subject land around 42.34 acres at Pithapuram village of Pithapuram mandal. East Godavari district presently Kakinada district as the sanctioned loan amount after pledging those land documents is already settled by the petitioner's company as it is highly illegal, and arbitrary action and also violative of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently issue a direction directing the respondents to issue OTS Proceedings forthwith. Kakinada Branch lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.8 not to entertain any l<V document for registration in Pursuance to the Sale Certificate dt.06.06.2022 pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct respondents Bank to issue final proceedings under One Time Settlement Scheme 2019-2020, (OTS), forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs. V. LIMA DEVI Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 & 6 : SRI CH. SIVA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 & 7 : Counsel for Respondent No.8 : GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following Common order: "V APHC010067502019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) M,E [3530] ft FRIDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Rev.l.A.Nos.4 of 2022 and 2 of 2023 in W.P.No.3007 of 2019 And W.P.Nos.19320 of 2019; 18398 of 2022: 21499 & 21517 of 2022 Rev.i.A.No.4 of 2022 in W.P.No.3007 of 2019: Between; 1.M/S THE KIRLAMPUDI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND 1.SR1 SIDDHARTHA INFRATECH AND SERVICES, NEAR BHARATIYA VIDHYA BHAVAN, ROAD N0.84, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD-500033 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER BANDARU NARASIMHARAO, S/O.PANDURANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 2. RECOVERY OFFICERII, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3.CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, KAKINADA BRANCH, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 . Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.CH SIVA REDDY, 2. 3 u The Court rnade the following COMMON ORDER: (PerNJSJ) The present Review Petitions are filed seeking review of the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3007 of 2019. The said Writ Petition was disposed of along with W.P.No. 1105 of 2019 and W.P.No.25880 of 2021. 2) For better appreciation of the case, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.3007 of 2019. The respondent i.e., M/s The Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “the borrower”) availed credit facilities from the Central Bank of India - 2"'^ respondent and committed default in payment For recovery of the loan, the Central Bank filed 3) of loan amount. O.A.No.9 of 2006 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and the same was allowed by an order dated 06.01.2009. For execution of the said order / decree, the Central Bank of India sought to conduct auction of an extent of Ac.42.36 cents of the borrower situated in Pitapuram Town, East Godavari District. In the auction conducted on 14.06.2018, the writ petitioner i.e.. M/s. Sri I Siddhartha Infra Tech and Services (I) Private Ltd., (for short “the auction purchaser”) was the successful bidder and on the same day, it deposited 25% of the bid amount i.e., Rs.7 Crores. 15 days time was available for the writ petitioner / auction purchaser to pay the balance bid amount, but was pre-empted from depositing the balance sale consideration as the 4 borrower filed W.R No. 18502 obtained interim orders 2018 was dismissed on 26.10.2018. W.P.No.41658 of 2018 of 2018 by way of a Lunch Motion and on 14.06.2018. Subsequently W.P.No.18502 of Thereafter, the borrower filed questioning a letter addressed by the Recovery Officer to the auction purchaser on the premise that the same is contrary Tax Act and an order dated to Rule 57(2) of Schedule II of the Income 19.11.2013 was passed, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: ...Therefore, if the Petitioher makes ps., on cance,,;; ^ comX” ’°''2.2018 rreporting 4) The borrower failed to comply with the writ petitioner / auction purchaser said order and as such, the was requested to pay the balance communication dated 25.01.2019. communication, the- borrower filed W.RNo.1105 of amount within 15 days vide Questioning the said 2019. 5) While the said writ petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.41658 of 2018 and 1105 Of 2019 are pending adjudication, the 1 respondent-Recovery Officer forfeited the amount deposited by the auction purchaser and cancelled the sale conducted purchaser filed W.R.No.3007 of 2019. the writ petitions on If 06.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the auction Notwithstanding the pendency of respondent remitted the 1 an amount of 5 Rs.7,39,68,473.55 ps., to the Government Treasury and aggrieved by the same, the Central Bank of India filed W.RNo.25880 of 2021. The learned Division Bench after hearing the matters at length vide 6) order dated 12.04.2022 which is sought to be reviewed, allowed W.RNo.3007 of 2019 filed by the auction purchaser by setting aside the proceedings cancelling the sale and forfeiting the amount and dismissed W.RNo.1105 of 2019, filed by the borrower. The learned Division Bench while allowing the Writ Retition filed by the auction purchaser issued directions to the effect that the Recovery Officer will issue a fresh notice giving 15 days time for payment of the amount by the auction purchaser and in default to take steps in accordance with law. Initially, Rev.l.A.No.4 of 2022 filed by the borrower seeking review 7) of the said order dated 12.04.2022 came up for consideration. A Division Bench of this Court passed the following order dated 04.08.2023: “When this review petition came up for hearing, having found that the interest of workers of the subject Sugar Mills is involved and who have nothing to do with the auction sale, this Court enquired whether review petitioner/ borrower is going to deposit a reasonable amount out of the EP amount to show bonafides of the petitioner so as to • enable this Court to hear the review petition. Learned senior counsel, Sri.A.Sudarshan Reddy, on getting instructions from the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner will deposit a reasonable amount as directed by the Court. In that view, we direct the review petitioner/ borrower to deposit 50 % of the amount covered by EP No.1 of 2019 in I.D No.58 of 2006 pending in XII Additional District Judge, Pithapuram, within ten (10) weeks from the date of receipt of this order, before the Registrar (Judicial), as a condition precedent to hear the review application. We make it clear that the above direction is without prejudice to the respective rights and liabilities of parties or with the outcome of the review application. 6 All the further proceedings pursuant to the auction dated 14.06.2018 shall be stayed until further orders. Post after four (4) weeks.” As the borrower / review petitioner failed to deposit the amount in terms of the order dated 04.08.2023, the auction purchaser filed I.A.No.1 8) of 2023 to vacate the order passed on 04.08.2023. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Division Bench vacated the stay granted on 04.08.2023 vide order dated 01.12.2023, the relevant portion of which, for ready reference, is extracted hereunder: “When the matter is taken up for hearing today, learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Venkataramana appearing for 1st respondent would submit that the petitioners have not complied with the order dated 04.08.2023 and requested the Court to vacate the order granted on 04.08.2023. Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, who is learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No. 17244 of 2022 would also submit in similar lines. On that this Court enquired Sri L.N.R.Rajeswar Rao, learned counsel representing Smt. V.Uma Devi learned counsel for review petitioner as to whether the petitioner have honoured the order dated 04.08.2023 and made deposit of 50% of the amount covered by E.P.No.1/2019 in I.D.No.58/2006 pending on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Pithapuram, or not. Learned counsel has not answered this aspect but only request the Court to grant one week time to argue the review petition. However, later learned counsel obtained information to the effect that the amount has not been deposited pursuant to this Court’s order dated 04.08.2023. He would fairly submit that no petition has been filed for extension of time. In these circumstances, stay granted by this Court is vacated. So far as the request for granting time to hear the review petition is concerned, post the Review Petition after two (2) weeks, for hearing.” After about 1 14 years of the order dated 01.12.2023 referred to 9) above, the review petitioner / borrower filed LA.No.2 of 2025 seeking to 7 recall the order dated 04.08.2023 in so far as the direction to deposit 50% of the amount as a condition precedent to hear the review application. 10) Heard Mr.K.Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the borrower and the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner-auction purchaser. The learned counsel representing the Central Bank of India appeared through* online. Also heard Mr.Noothalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel, representing M/s The Kirlampudi Sugar Mill Staff and Workers Union, and Mr.Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner a in Rev.l.A.No.2 of2023. 11) Learned Senior Counsel sought to advance arguments with reference to the grounds raised in the review petition. 12) Before embarking upon the aspect of review in the light of the settled legal position, it may be pertinent to note that the review petitioner - borrower have made unsuccessful attempts inf preventing finalization of the auction proceedings in which the auction purchaser was the highest bidder. It is not in dispute that the order passed by the DRT, Visakhapatnam in O.A.No.9 of 2006 against the review petitioner- borrower attained finality. The orders referred to in the earlier paragraphs would go to show that ample, opportunity was afforded to the review petitioner / borrower to contest the matters on condition of depositing certain amounts. It failed to comply with the orders, thus committed default on more than two occasions. Even the order dated 04.08.2023 passed in the interest of the workers was not complied with and as such, the Division Bench was constrained to vacate the stay vide order dated 01.12.2023. A perusal of the order dated 04.08.2023 would make it clear that the same was passed with the consent of the review petitioner - borrower. If at all such a conditional order is not just or acceptable, nothing prevented the review petitioner - borrower to seek recourse to remedies available in law.' 13) Further, having invited conditional order and failed to comply with the same, the borrower filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 after much water has flown. The failure of the review petitioner / borrower in complying with the orders placed it in a disadvantageous position as a defaulter. Hearing of the review application, as agreed to by it, was subject to the condition of depositing 50% of the amount covered by E.P.No.1 of 2019 in I.D.No.58 of 2006 and by committing a default, the borrower allowed the order to be vacated and as such the review petition deserves no consideration. The subsequent attempt to recall the condition imposed in the order dated 04.08.2023, which was already Vacated is nothing short of abuse of process of law. That apart, pursuant to the final orders dated 12.04.2022, the writ petitioner-auction purchaser, as per the affidavit dated 17.08.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 paid the balance 75% bid amount i.e.. 9 The review Rs.21 Crores and sale certificate was issued, petitioner/borrower seeking thp stay of operation of the sale certificate dated 06.06.2022, filed Writ Petition No. 21499 of 2022. meanwhile, the auction purchaser has settled the matter with the workers union and paid E.P. amount in I.D.No.58 of 2006. As such, Mr.N.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the Union states thdt E.P. is not pressed and I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No. 19320 of 2019 is filed to permit withdrawal of E.P. Under the said circumstances, more particularly in view of the failure to comply with the conditional order, the review petitioner / borrower is disentitled from seeking review of the order dated 12.04.2022 and the review petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground. Be that as it may. 14) The scope of review, it is settled position in law, is very limited. 15) Order XLVIl Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with review of a judgment or an order is extracted for ready reference: In thp Order XLVIl Rule 1 - Application For Review of Judgment: (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledg_e could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error or 10 apparent on the face of the record of for desires to obtain a any other sufficient reason, review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review ofjudgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgrpent notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such to the applicant apd the appellant, or when, being respondent, he present to the Appellate Court the review. appeal is common can on which he applies for the case 16) A review can be ordered only on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record (See; 1995(1) SCC 170). In Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarati a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, held that a mere erroneous decision per se does not permit the Court to undertake review. 17) In the case of Rajendra Kumar Vs. Rambhail the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the first and foremost entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which i suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and requirement of IS sought permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed 18) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India^ observed and held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The Supreme AiR 2003 Guj.l57 ^ AIR 2003 SC 2095 ' 2000 (6) SC 224 11. Court also held in the case of State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another^ as follows: “22. The term “mistake or error apparent” by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law. or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision.” 19) In SmtKrishna Pathak Vs. Vinod Shankar Tiwari and Others^ the Court has observed as follows: “41. In view of the above discussion, the law of review can be summarized that it lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The party must satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence discovered by it at a subsequent stage could not be discovered or produced at the initial stage though it had acted with due dilipence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other "sufficient reason" must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Under the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to re-open the case and to gain a full-fledged inning for making submissions, nor review lies merely on the ground that it may be possible for tbe Court to take a view contrary to what had been taken earlier. Even the judgment given subsequent to the decision in a case can be no ground for entertaining the review. Review lies only when there is error apparent on the face of the record and that fallibility is by the oversight of the Court. If a counsel has argued a case to his satisfaction and he had not raised the particular point for any reason whatsoever, it cannot‘be a ground of review for the reason that he was the master of his case and might not have considered it proper to press the same or could have thought that arguing that point would not serve any purpose. If a case has been decided after full consideration of arguments made by a counsel, he cannot be permitted, even under the garb of doing justice or substantial justice, to engage the court again to decide the controversy already decided. If a party is aggrieved of a judgment, it must approach the Higher Court but entertaining a review to re-consider the case would amount to exceeding Its jurisdiction, conferred under the limited jurisdiction for the purpose of review. Justice, as explained above, connotes different ^ 2008 (8) see 612 ^ 2005 see Ontine ALL 1533 12 meaning to different persons in-different contexts, therefore, courts cannot be persuaded to entertain a review application to do justice unless it lies only on the grounds mentioned in the statutory provisions." In Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application Under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 Code of Civil 20) Procedure, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not an appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided, in.the said judgment, after considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had summed up as under: (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions, (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. '’(2019) 20 see 753 13 (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate, (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrihe actus curiae neminem gravabit. 21) In the case of Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. \/s. Assam SEB^ the Hon ble Apex Court observed and held that scope of review Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 114 Code of Civil Procedure is limited and under the guise of review, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided. It is further observed that an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. 22) Recently, in S.Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan and others^, the Apex Court while referring to Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra (6 supra) and Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. (7 supra) held that even if the judgment sought to be reviewed is erroneous, the same cannot be a ground to review in exercise of powers Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. An erroneous order may be subjected to appeal before the higher forum, but cannot be a subject matter of review Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. ' (2020) 2 see 677 *(2023) 13 see 515 H-J 14 23) Further, discovery of any new fact or evidence necessarily has to be an important or relevant factor to the extent that had it been brought on record at the time when the order was passed, it would have an impact and might have altered the decision. Moreover, absence of such important fact or evidence on record at the time of decision, must not be the result of negligent attitude of'the concerned person and therefore such person applying for review is required by law to strictly prove that such fact or evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be adduced, even after exercising due diligence and unless such proof is produced, review application shall not be entertained. 24) The grounds of review in the present case does not satisfy the requirements of review and it is nothing but a desperate attempt of the review petitioner for rehearing of the matter under the guise of review and the same is not permissible in Law. 25) In the light of the above stated legal position and for the conclusions recorded supra, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Rev.l.A.No.4 of 2022 in W.P.No.3007 of 2019 and the same is accordingly dismissed. 26) I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.19320 of 2019 is allowed. 15 27) Review IANo.2 of 2023 in W.P.No.3007 of 2019: One Ms.Aishwarya Ch. claiming to be the daughter of the former Managing Director of the borrower company filed said I.A. seeking to review of the order dated 12.04.2022 on various grounds. Her claim inter alia is that on the death of her father, she became a major shareholder with 87.67% shares in the sugar mill and before disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 12.04.2022, an opportunity should have been afforded to her. She also filed separate Miscellaneous Applications along with orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal; Hyderabad Bench. From a perusal of the same, it would appear that the Company Law Tribunal passed some orders after the order under review dated 12.04.2022 in W.P.No.3007 of 2019. Admittedly, the review petitioner is not a party to the said Writ Petition. However, the present review petition has been filed without filing an application seeking leave of this Court and on that ground the review application is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the Review I.A.No.2 of 2023 is dismissed. As a consequence of the same I.A.Nos.3 of 2023 and 1 of 2024 are also dismissed. Needless to observe that the Review Petitioner is at liberty to work out her remedies in accordance with law. 28) In view of the dismissal of Review Petition and payment of E.P. amount in l.D.No.58 of 2006 by the writ petitioner-auction purchaser, the liability of the borrower pursuant to the order dated 13.09.2017 in 16 I.D.No.58 of 2006 stands extinguished. Therefore, no further adjudication is required in W.P.No.19320 of 2019 and the same is accordingly closed. 29) Further as the review petition is dismissed and the sale certificate dated 06.06.2022 was already issued pursuant to the orders 12.04.2022, which has attained finality, W.P.No.21499 dismissed. dated of 2022 is 30) In view of the satisfaction of the Award dated 13.09.2017 in I.D.No.58 of 2006 and closure of W.P.No. 19320 of 2019, there shall be a direction to the respondent authorities in W.P.No. 18398 of 2022 to Register the Sale Certificate dated 04.06.2022 in favour of the Writ petitioner. Accordingly, W.P.No.18398 of 2022 is disposed of. Ail other Miscellaneous Applications stands closed. In view of the dismissal of Review Applications and the orders passed in W.P.No.18398 of 2022, nothing survives for adjudication in W.P.No.21517 of 2022. Accordingly, W.P.No.21517 of 2022.is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Sub Registrar. Pithapuram No.2 , East Godavari District. 2. The District Registrar. East Godavari District, Kakinada, 3. The Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps Department, Government of AP., at Vijayawada. 4. The Secretary, Revenue (Registration and Stamps) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat. Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 5. The Recovery Officer-ll, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. 6. One CC to Mrs. V. Lima Devi Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to M/s. Bharadwaj Associates, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri Ch. Siva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 10.One CC to Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, Advocate [OPUC] 11 .One CC to Sri P. Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India (OPUC) 12.One CC to Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, Advocate (OPUC) 13.TWO CCs to GP for Labour, High Court of A.P. (OUT) 14.Two CCs to GP for Stamps & Registration, High Court of A.P. (OUT) 15.Two CD Copies Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:12/09/2025 COMMON ORDER REVIEW I.A. Nos.4 of 2022 and 2 of 2023 in WP NO. 3007 OF 2019, and W.P. Nos.19320 of 2019, 18398 of 2022, 21499 and 21517 of 2022 o( 0 I NOV 2025 ^ y co Sectioi DISMISSING REVIEW I.A. Nos. 4 of 2022 & 2 of 2023, CLOSING THE W.P. No.19320 of 2019, DISPOSING OF THE W.P. No.18398 of 2022, W.P. Nos.3007 OF 2019, AND DISMISSING W.P.Nos. 21499 and 21517 of 2022 WITHOUT COSTS