HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MAIN CASE No.: W.P.No. 4592 of 2026 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 2. 27.02.2026 RNT, J&BM, J Review I.A.No.2 of 2026, I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2026 The writ petition was disposed of vide judgment/order dated 16.02.2026, in the following terms: “9. Considering that the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is presently on leave, as also the consent of the learned counsels on either side, as aforesaid, we deem it appropriate to provide that the delivery warrant shall remain in abeyance, subject to the following conditions : a) The petitioners shall deposit/pay a sum of Rs.1,67,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) with the respondent/Bank within a period of one week from today, i.e., on or before 23.02.2026. b) In default of such payment within the stipulated time as aforesaid, the same delivery warrant shall be proceeded with and the Advocate- Commissioner shall execute the same in accordance with law. 10. It is clarified that this order is 2 without prejudice to the terms of the OTS for final payment is to be made on or before 28.02.2026. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of finally.” 2. The aforesaid order was passed as learned counsel for the petitioners stated before the Court and which was recorded in para No.(7) of the judgment, which reads as under: “Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to certain unavoidable circumstances, the payment could not be made as per the OTS schedule, but the petitioners are ready to pay the amount as due under the two installments, i.e., Rs.1,67,50,000/-, within one (01) week from today, without prejudice to the remaining terms of the OTS, wherein the final payment is to be made on or before 28.02.2026.” 3. Review I.A.No.2 of 2026 has been filed by the petitioners through another counsel namely, Sri G.V.V.S.Vara Prasad, for review of the judgment, dated 16.02.2026. 4. I.A.No.4 of 2026 has also been filed by the same counsel, who filed the review petition for extension of time by 15 days to comply with the order dated 16.02.2026. 5. Firstly, we shall not entertain the review I.A.No.2 of 2026 by a different counsel. 3 6. In Tamilnadu Electricity Board v. N.Raju Reddiar((1997) 9 SCC 736), the Hon’ble Apex court held as under: “Once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed, much less with the change of the Advocate-on-Record. This practice of changing the advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with a heavy hand for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy practice.” 7. Secondly, the order in the writ petition was passed in view of the contents of para No.(7), in which the then counsel made statement with respect to the payment. So, there cannot be said to be any error apparent on the face of the order dated 16.02.2026. 8. Review I.A.No.2 of 2026 is dismissed. 9. For the same reason that the order was passed in view of what the counsel stated and upon such statement, the learned Standing Counsel had also accepted. Now, without complying any part of the order/judgment, application for extension by 15 days has been filed. The review petitioner/applicant lacks in bonafide. He must have complied by deposit of two instalments amount of approximately Rs.1,67,50,000/- and then could have approached for extension of time to deposit the balance by 16.03.2026, instead of 20.02.2026, satisfying this Court that the last date to clear the 4 entire due under O.T.S is 16.03.2026 and not 28.02.2026. 10. We do not find it a case for extension of time as well. 11. I.A.No.4 of 2026 is also rejected. 12. Since the Review I.A.No.2 of 2026 has been dismissed, I.A.No.3 of 2026, which is filed to dispense with the certified copy of the order dated 16.02.2026 in W.P.No.4592 of 2026 also stands closed. _____________ RNT, J _____________ BM, J Pab 5