( 1 ) THIS court initially dismissed the writ petition on 24-1-2003 following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in m/s. Rayalaseema Roller Flour Mills v. A. P. S. E. B. , Hyderabad and also on the decision of the Apex Court in S. L. P. No. 13004/1989.

( 2 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the learned counsel for the petitioner represented that this court while dismissing the writ petition did not take into consideration the law laid down by the apex Court with regard to situation that arose due to the earlier interim orders of this court. He stated this court granted interim directions in favour of the petitioner and by virtue of the said direction, the petitioner was extended the subsidy during the pendency of the writ petition and in view of the dismissal of the writ petition though the petitioner repaid the subsidy availed by him, the respondents are demanding to pay the surcharge on that amount, treating as if the petitioner has paid the amount belatedly. He stated that the stay been not granted, the petition would have paid the amount within the prescribed period and he would not have been penalized with surcharge. In support of his contention, he also relied