Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
B Malathi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 July, 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
****
W.P.NO.17408 of 2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 15.07.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY,J
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be Yes/No
allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked Yes/No
to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes/No
of the Judgment?
________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY,J
2
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
+ W.P.No.17408 of 2026
% 15.07.2026
Between:
B Malathi, W/O Hemanth Kumar, Aged 40 Years,
Occ. Deputy Tahsildar, Iragavaram, R/O. Mandapaka Post,
Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District.
...Petitioner
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary,
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi and 4 others.
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi
Counsel for the Respondent(S): G.P. for Services -I
< Gist :
> Head Note:
? Cases Referred:
1
(1979) 2 SCC 150
2
(2024) 7 SCC 103
3
2009 (6) ALD 636 (DB)
4
(2007(5) SCC 425)
5
(1991) 4 SCC 109
6
(2009(16) SCC 329
7
(1998 (9) SCC 261)
8
(2011 (14) SCC 235)
9
2022(5) SCC 634
10
1995 Supp (2) SCC 83
11
1993 Supp (3) SCC 491
12
2011 (3) CTC 129
3
Date of reserved for orders :
Date of pronouncement :
Date of uploading :
APHC010327962026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 17408/2026
Between:
1. B MALATHI, W/O HEMANTH KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC.
DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, IRAGAVARAM, R/O. MANDAPAKA POST,
TANUKU MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534218
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI - 522238.
2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION,
D.NO.189, 2ND FLOOR HIMAGNA TOWERS, N.T.R. MAARG, LIC
COLONY, B-BLOCK, GOLLAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH 521225.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, MARUTHI
NAGAR BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534244
4. K RAJ KUMAR, TAHSILDAR, ALLOTTED TO WEST GODAVARI
DISTRICT. C/O. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND
ADMINISTRATION, D.NO.189, 2ND FLOOR HIMAGNA TOWERS,
N.T.R. MAARG, LIC COLONY, B-BLOCK, GOLLAPUDI, ANDHRA
PRADESH 521225
5. V SAI MAHESH BABU, TAHSILDAR, ALLOTTED TO KAKINADA
DISTRICT C/O. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND
ADMINISTRATION, D.NO.189, 2ND FLOOR HIMAGNA TOWERS,
N.T.R. MAARG, LIC COLONY, B-BLOCK, GOLLAPUDI, ANDHRA
4
PRADESH 521225
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court
may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the
action of the Respondent No.2 in deferring the case of the petitioner for
promotion to the post of Tahsiidar on the ground of minor punishment of
minor censure as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles-14,16 and 21 of
the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to
consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Tahsildar
without reference to the minor punishment of minor censure with effect
the date on which her juniors was promoted, and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased pleased to directs the Respondent No.2 to consider the case of
the petitioner for promotion to the post of Tahsildar without reference to
the minor punishment of "minor censure", and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
Whether the order is :
Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No
Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
5
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION No.17408 of 2026
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent
No.2 in differing the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post
of Tahsildar on account of „punishment of minor censure‟ as illegal
and arbitrary.
2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant in the
year 2005 on compassionate grounds. Subsequently, Petitioner was
promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 2010 and as Deputy
Tahsildar in the year 2018. Now Petitioner is due for promotion to
the post of Tahsildar. A final integrated seniority list of Deputy
Tahsildars came to be issued on 31.05.2026 and the Petitioner was
placed at Sl.No.238. A DPC was held on 04.06.2026 and candidates
upto Sl.No.234 in the seniority list were considered for promotion.
While so, after issuance of integrated seniority list, a show cause
notice was issued by Respondent No.3 on 01.06.2026 to show
cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against
her with regard to a complaint said to have been made by Sri
D.Prabhakar Rao. Petitioner submitted her explanation stating that
6
she had worked in the Office of Tahsildar, Iragavaram till 28.02.2026
and later was deputed to the Office of R.D.O.Tadepalligudem.
3. It is stated that the complainant made an RTI application on
03.01.2026 requesting copy of revenue records pertaining to the
RCM Church located in Sy.No.61/3, Kathuvapadu Village. After
receiving the said application, the same was put up before the
Village Revenue Officer (DRO). The complainant was approaching
her for two or three days and seeking the status of the action taken
and even when the complainant had raised voice, the Petitioner had
replied with all courtesy and never talked in a rude manner. Taking
note of the submissions, Respondent No.3 vide impugned
proceedings imposed a penalty of minor censure stating that the
complainant said to have informed that the Petitioner stated “meeku
cheppala”, which was perceived to be disrespectful to the
complainant as he was aged 77 years. Questioning the order of
minor penalty, Petitioner appealed before Respondent No.2 and
further prayed to consider her case for promotion without reference
to the punishment.
4. It was further stated that Respondent No.2 vide proceedings
dated 24.06.2026 had considered the cases of Deputy Tahsildars
and promoted 16 persons junior to the Petitioner including 4
7
candidates under SC category, who were shown from Sl.No.239
onwards in the seniority list. It was in that context, the Petitioner was
informed that in view of the penalty of censure, the Petitioner was
not considered for promotion.
5. In the present writ petition, Petitioner claims for consideration
of promotion on the premise that „penalty of censure‟ cannot have a
bearing on the promotion of the Petitioner. Judgments of Full Bench
of Madras High Court, which was followed by Coordinate Benches of
this Court were referred to in support of the case.
6. Learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner Sri M.Vijay Kumar
also argued the validity of the punishment on such trivial grounds
and sought for setting aside the same notwithstanding the pendency
of appeal before the 2nd Respondent.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Sri S.Raju,
contended that the penalty of minor censure was imposed after
taking note of the conduct of the Petitioner and for imposing of minor
penalty, elaborate enquiry is not required and the same can be
based on considering the explanation in view of Rule 16 of APCS
CCA Rules. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further
submitted that G.O.Ms.No.53, General Administration (Ser.C)
Department, dated 04.02.1997 was issued clarifying that the
8
punishment of censure shall debar a Government employee for
promotion/appointment by transfer for one year to both selection and
non-selection posts. It is therefore submitted that the action of the
Respondents in deferring the promotion of the Petitioner is in
consonance with the Rules.
8. The issues now fall for consideration are:
(a) Whether penalty of censure shall debar an individual
Government employee for promotion for a period of one
year ?
(b) Whether the punishment imposed on the Petitioner can
be sustained?
9. Issue No.(a): In the APCS CCA Rules, there is no specific
consequence of penalty of censure imposed on Government
employee. Taking note of this aspect, the State Government after
due consideration, issued G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 04.02.1997. As per
the said G.O., the punishment of censure was held to debar an
employee for promotion for a period of one year, which reads as
under:
ORDER:
According to sub-rule (i) of rule 9 of the
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, “Censure” is
9declared as a minor penalty. Para 11 of the G.O.
first read above provides that an individual, who is
undergoing punishment, should not be
recommended for promotion and where the period
of punishment imposed is already over, each
period of punishment imposed is already over,
each case has to be evaluated by Departmental
Promotion Committee on merits. In the
Government Memo, second read above,
instructions were issued to the effect that solitary
instance of minor punishment such as censure,
fine, withholding of increments or recovery from
pay of the pecuniary loss caused to the State
Government or Central Government undergone or
being undergone by a Government employee by
itself does not automatically render a person unfit
for promotion to a non-selection post.
2] The Government of India, Ministry of Home
Affairs, in its instructions issued in
O.Μ.No.39/21/56, Ests. (A), Dt.13-12-56 has
clarified that an order of “Censure” is formal and
public act intended to convey that the person
concerned has been guilty of some blameworthy
act or omission for which it has been found
necessary to award him a formal punishment and
nothing can amount to a “censure” unless it is
intended to be such a formal punishment and
imposed for ‘good and sufficient reason’ after
following the prescribed procedure and that a
record of the punishment so imposed is kept on
the officer’s confidential roll and the fact that he
10has been ‘Censured’ will have its bearing on the
assessment of his merit or suitability for promotion
to higher posts.
3] As the penalty of censure has a bearing on
the assessment of the Government Servant about
his merit or suitability for promotion to higher posts
and as the currency of punishment based on
previous record stands as an impediment for
promotion, it is considered necessary to specify
the time limit during which the said penalty of
“Censure” is effective besides defining the penalty.
4] Hitherto, there are no specific orders in
regard to definition of “Censure” and its
implications. After careful consideration, the
Government decided to issue the following orders
in regard to definition of “Censure” and it’s
implications in assessing the “merit” and suitability
of the Government Servant for his
promotion/appointment by transfer.
DEFINITION:
“Censure” is a formal and public act intended to
convey that the person concerned has been guilty
of some blameworthy act or omission for which it
has been found necessary to award him a formal
punishment, and nothing can amount to a
“Censure” unless it is intended to be such a formal
punishment and imposed for “good and sufficient
reason” after following the prescribed procedure.
Effect:
11
Every censure awarded shall debar a
Government servant for promotion/
appointment by transfer for one year to both
selection and non-Selection posts.
5] All the Departments of Secretariat and Heads of
Departments are requested to bring these orders
to the notice of all concerned.
10. Though, the above extracted G.O. is an executive instruction,
the power of the executive is co-extensive with the legislature as
provided in Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Executive
instructions designed to fill gaps in legislation or to supplement them
can be considered to be statutory in nature. It would be apt to refer
to the observations in Distt. Registrar v. M.B. Koyakutty1,:
“22. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that if the
statutory rules framed by the Governor or any law enacted by
the State Legislature under Article 309 is silent on any particular
point, the Government can fill up that gap and supplement the
rule by issuing administrative instructions not inconsistent with
the statutory provisions already framed or enacted. The
Executive instructions in order to be valid must run subservient
to the statutory provisions.”
1
(1979) 2 SCC 150
12
11. Similar view was expressed in Kavita Kamboj v. High Court
of Punjab & Haryana2, at paragraph 53 thereof.
“53. The appropriate authority cannot amend or
supersede statutory rules by administrative actions. However, it
is open to it to issue instructions to fill up the gaps and
supplement the rules where they are silent on any particular
point.19 Such instructions have a binding force provided they
are subservient to the statutory provisions and have been
issued to fill up the gaps between the statutory provisions.20”
12. It is pertinent to note here that a similar G.O.Ms.No.342 dated
04.08.1997, was issued by the State Government to the effect that if
employee is awarded the penalty of stoppage of increment with
cumulative effect, the cases of such employees shall not be
considered for promotion/appointment by transfer for twice the
period for which the increments are stopped with cumulative effect,
for both for selection and non-selection posts. The said G.O. was
considered by a Division bench of this Court in State of A.P. and
another v. K.Abhimanyudu3 and it was held that the
G.O.Ms.No.342 has statutory value and that it is policy decision of
the State. Paragraph 17 thereof is extracted below;
“17. …The Government is entitled to conduct its
business by issuing appropriate orders in the name of2
(2024) 7 SCC 103
3
2009 (6) ALD 636 (DB)
13Governor, which shall be specified under the Rules. C.C.A.
Rules have been specifically enacted in exercise of powers of
the State under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India. As the Rules made under the A.P. Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules do not provide
the effect of penalty, the Government issued G.O.Ms.
No.342 under executive power. Therefore, the order of the
Government, issued in the name of Governor of Andhra
Pradesh, under Article 162 of the Constitution of India has
an effect of law. As the aforesaid G.O. issued by the
Government in exercise of its executive power under Article
154/162 of the Constitution of India is having force of law, as
the effect of penalty is not covered by any statutory Rules, both
the memos, dated 4.11.1999 and 9.2.2009 are issued by the
Secretary to the Government. The Government cannot take
away the effect of its order by issuing Circular Memo. G.O. Ms.
No.342 issued by the Government is in the nature of policy of
the State for giving effect to the penalties. Therefore, any policy
decision of the Government issued in the form of G.O., cannot
be diluted by way of Circular Memos. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that the Circular Memos have no statutory force and the
Circular Memo, dated 4.11.1999, which was relied on by the
respondent has no effect of G.O. Ms. No.342.”
13. Secondly, if the contention of the learned senior counsel is to
be accepted, “censure” imposed on an established misconduct of an
employee literally has no consequence. Such an approach would
make the penalty of “censure” a dead provision in the rules. The
discipline among the employees is instilled in fear of consequence of
any act of misconduct and it would be unfair to treat an employee
censured, on par with an employee with clean record for the purpose
14
of promotion. If a punishment has no consequence, it erodes
deterrence and leads to the normalization of wrongdoing.
14. Thirdly, in none of the Judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court censure was held not to be a bar for promotion. To start with,
in Union of India v. A.N.Mohanan4, a departmental action was
initiated against the individual therein and his case for promotion
was kept in sealed cover. After enquiry, penalty of Censure was
imposed and then the individual sought for promotion by opening the
sealed cover. The Central Administrative Tribunal directed the
opening of sealed cover and gave effect to promotion from
retrospective date as censure is not a bar for promotion. The Hon‟ble
Supreme Court taking note of the observations in paragraph 26 of
K.V.Janakiraman v. Union of India5, set-aside the said order of the
Tribunal as the imposition of penalty was a blame worthy factor and
sealed cover cannot be acted upon. The relevant paragraph is
extracted below;
11. Awarding of censure, therefore, is a blameworthy
factor. A bare reading of Para 3.1 as noted above makes
the position clear that where any penalty has been
imposed the findings of the sealed cover are not to be
4
(2007(5) SCC 425)
5
(1991) 4 SCC 109
15
acted upon and the case for promotion may be considered
by the next DPC in the normal course.
15. A similar view was taken in Union of India v. Mihir Kumar
Bandhopandhyay6, State of M.P. v. I.A.Quereshi 7 and in State
Bank of India v. CK Karunakaran Civil Appeal No.6821 of 2009
dated 30.09.2021.
16. In State of Rajasthan v. Shankar Lal Parmar 8, the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court was considering an issue as to whether an
employee would be entitled for the grant of “selection grade”,
automatically, after the completion of 9 years, 18 years and 27 years
of service, even when he has earned a penalty of censure.
17. A circular similar to G.O.Ms.No.53 deferring the benefit of
selection grade for a period of one year was under consideration in
the said judgment. After examining the circulars, the Hon‟ble
Supreme court held that deferring the selection grade by one year
on account of censure is correct and there cannot be automatic
grant of selection grade despite awarding penalty of „Censure‟. It
was observed that distinction has to be made between employees
imposed with a penalty of censure and those with clean records and
6
(2009(16) SCC 329
7
(1998 (9) SCC 261)
8
(2011 (14) SCC 235)
16
both cannot be treated alike. The relevant paragraphs are extracted
below;
“1. Leave granted. The solitary question that arises for
our consideration in the instant and the connected appeals is
whether an employee would be entitled for the grant of
“selection grade”, automatically, at the first instance, after the
completion of 9 years, at the second instance, after the
completion of 18 years and at the third and last instance, after
the completion of 27 years of service, even when he has
earned censure in the past years of service.
2. In fact, on the strength of an order pronounced by a
Division Bench on 12-12-2003 in Devi Singh v. State of
Rajasthan1, several matters came to be filed in the High Court
of Judicature of Rajasthan both at the Principal Bench at
Jodhpur and at the Bench at Jaipur claiming entitlement for the
selection grade. Unfortunately, the learned Judges, either sitting
in Single Bench hearing the writ petitions of the employees or in
Division Bench, hearing the writ appeals of the State, without
properly appreciating or adverting to the ratio decidendi of the
case, in a stereotype manner, went on allowing the writ
petitions filed by the employees and dismissing the appeals
preferred by the State.
20. However, we need to clarify that during the interregnum
period between the first office order, issued on 25-1-1992 and
the subsequent clarificatory Office Order/Letter dated 24-7-
1995, some of the employees were granted the benefit of
selection grade. The appellant State would not be entitled to
claim refund from such employees who have already been
granted benefit in this period. The subsequent office order/letter
further makes it clear that all those employees who have
earned censure in service shall also be entitled for the
selection grade but the grant of selection grade to them
would be deferred by one year. This appears to be an
absolutely reasonable and perfect classification as
otherwise every employee who has a clean image and
another employee, who has earned censure would be
treated on a par. This is not permissible in the service
17jurisprudence and is also violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
21. It is a settled principle of law that “like should be treated
alike”. This is the mandate and command of Article 14 of the
Constitution, which we are required to follow. In any case,
those who have earned censure cannot be treated on a par
with those who have had a clean service record. As
mentioned hereinabove, an employee with blemished,
polluted, tainted, unclean service record cannot be equated
with other employee who has enjoyed clean, unblemished,
unpolluted, untainted and impeccable service record. Such
differentiation would not be violative of Article 14 while
dealing with the principles of equality.
18. The above judgment referred to Rajasthan SRTC v. Sadhu
Singh9. Apart from the above, the non-recommendation of an
individual for promotion on account of penalty of censure was held to
be a valid ground in Chabungham Ibohal Singh v. Union of
India10. A similar view was also taken in the State of T.N. v. P.
Bose11.
19. The genesis for the orders passed by coordinate Benches
treating Censure as not a bar for promotion, is an interim order in
W.A.No.1158 of 2016 dated 21.11.2016 relying on the full bench of
Madras High Court. The said W.A was subsequently dismissed as
infructuous on 13.04.2022 as the individual was promoted. The
9
2022(5) SCC 634
10
1995 Supp (2) SCC 83
11
1993 Supp (3) SCC 491
18
Judgment of the Division Bench in State of A.P. and anr v.
K.Abhimanyudu was also not brought to the notice, when interim
order was made on 21.11.2016 in W.A.No.1158 of 2016. It is to be
noted that there never was an authoritative pronouncement by this
Court on this aspect. Unfortunately, the interim order held the field,
even after the W.A. was dismissed as infructuous. A serious
introspection is required by all the stakeholders representing the
State.
20. Coming to the Full Bench decision of Madras High Court in the
Deputy Inspector General of Police v. V.Rani 12, the issue was a
letter dated 07.10.2005 issued by the Secretary to Government
giving consolidated instructions for promotions. In the said letter, it
was stated that a person imposed with a punishment of censure
cannot be considered for promotion and in regards other
punishments, it was specified that such individuals could not be
considered for promotion for five years. Firstly, the letters were
issued with reference to G.O.Ms.No.368 dated 18.10.1993, but the
said G.O. did not prescribe the bar of one year/five years as
mentioned in the letter issued by the Secretary to Government. It
was in that context, it was opined that the “censure” cannot be a
12
2011 (3) CTC 129
19
ground for deferring promotion for one year based on the letter. For
better understanding paragraph 24 thereof is extracted below.
“24….The embargo imposed in respect of further period
as stated above can never be said to be authorized under the
statutory rules. The said Government letter can be treated as
a circular issued by the Secretary to Government to all
departments. This letter, as correctly submitted by the
learned senior counsel Mr.G.Rajagopal, cannot supersede
the statutory rules.”
21. As mentioned above, the scenario in this State is different and
the bar is imposed vide G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 04.02.1997 issued in
the name of Governor and signed by the Chief Secretary. This was
held to be law as mentioned supra. Apart from that, most of the
Judgments cited supra, did not fall for consideration before the Full
Bench of Madras High Court as the focus was only on the validity of
the Government letter.
22. In view of the above, the Issue No.(a) is answered holding that
the penalty of “Censure” is a bar for promotion for the period
specified in G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 04.02.1997.
23. Issue (b): On the merits of punishment imposed on the
Petitioner, it is stated that a complaint was received from Sri
D.Prabhakara Rao aged about 77 years resident of Kalhavapudi
Village alleging that he had visited Tahsildar Office to enquire about
20
the status of RTI application and the Petitioner is said to have been
answered in a rude and disrespect manner “he will send answer,
don’t ask” and thereby failed to maintain proper courtesy expected
from a public servant.
24. On the basis of the complaint received, a show cause notice
was issued to the Petitioner on 01.06.2026. In response, the
Petitioner gave a reply stating that the information sought by the
individual is being sought from VRO concerned and that the
information as sought under RTI would be supplied within the
stipulated time. It is stated that the Petitioner denied speaking in
discourteous manner to the said individual.
25. In the impugned order, it is stated that a telephonic enquiry
was made with regard to the complaint from D.Prabhakar Rao and in
the telephonic enquiry, the complainant stated that the Petitioner had
stated “meeku cheppala” which was perceived as disrespectful
considering that the individual is aged 77 years. It is specifically
mentioned that in the impugned order that there is no deliberate
denial of RTI information, however, the interaction by the Petitioner
was not appropriate to hold the standards of courtesy expected from
a responsible public servant while dealing with citizens and in view
of the same, the impugned penalty was imposed.
21
26. A reading of the impugned order shows that there was no
verbal altercation nor there is any deliberate denial of information
under RTI by the Petitioner.
27. In gauging discourteous behaviour of an individual, the same
has to be viewed from a normal prudent persons view point. This is
the yardstick adopted in defamation cases also. In the present case,
the complainant felt offended by the words of the Petitioner „meeku
cheppala‟. The statement of the Petitioner does not disclose any
discourteous reply and merely because the complainant had
perceived the statement of the Petitioner to be disrespectful, the
same per se cannot be a ground. In the normal local dialect, the
Petitioner had addressed the individual from a normal prudent
person’s point of view and therefore, the penalty of censure is
unwarranted and accordingly, the same is set aside. The Issue (b)
is answered accordingly.
28. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with
the following direction:
(i) As the order of penalty is set aside, the Respondents shall
consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of
Tahsildar taking into account her seniority and in accordance with
the Rules.
22
(ii) No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any shall stand closed.
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date:15.07.2026
Note: L.R. copy be marked.
KLP
