( 1 ) THE instant petition to review the final judgment in Writ Appeal No. 903 of 1994 has been occasioned for the reason that the Bench consisting of Lingaraja Rath, J. and D. Reddeppa Reddi has ordered that in view of the judgment of this Court in Kum. K. Pushpa Leela v. Labour Court, Guntur, (1991) 3 ALT 22 (Notes on Recent Cases) and G. Padma v. Dr. B. Vijaya Lakshmi, (1994) 3 ALT 318, it has to be heard by Reddeppa Reddi, J. alone because A. Lakshmana Rao, J. , has since demitted the office and learned counsel for the petitioners has circulated a letter stating that the matter should not be heard by Reddeppa Reddi, J. , as he was the Standing Counsel for the respondents before his elevation as a Judge. No objection, however, was taken when the writ appeal was taken up for hearing that Reddeppa Reddi, J. , should not hear the appeal. The order that the matter should be heard by Reddeppa Reddi, J. , was passed by a Bench, of which Reddeppa Reddi, J. , was a Member,

( 2 ) BEFORE we take up the petition for hearing, we propose to clarify the legal position. Is it correct to say that in all cases and in all circumstances a petition for reviewing the judgment delivered by a Judge or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document