Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. G.O.Ms.No.9, dated 17.05.2011, hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’, was issued through the Backward Classes Welfare (C2) Department of the then Government of Andhra Pradesh, before the coming into force of Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014; hereinafter referred to as ‘A.P.Re-organisation Act’. This Writ Petition is instituted as a Public Interest Litigation, for short ‘PIL’, seeking a declaration that the action of the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in continuing with the enforcement of that impugned order is arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional. That Government Order as well as proceedings pursuant to that Government Order are sought to be set aside.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana, and the learned Government Pleader for General Administration and the learned Government Pleader for B.C. Welfare appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh.

3. The petitioner in this PIL is ‘O.C. Sankeshema Sangham’ (Registered No.1813 of 2004) – for short, ‘Sangham’ - represented by its President G. Karunakar Reddy. The Petitioner – Sangham, represented by the very same person, instituted W.P. No.15094 of 2011, along with G. Srinath, represented by his power of attorney holder C. Vishnuvardhan, challenging the impugned order. That writ petition was contested by the combined State of Andhra Pradesh. On adjudication, the Division Bench held, inter alia, that the said Government Order was issued in consultation with the Andhra Pradesh Commission for Backward Classes in terms of Section 11 of Andhra Pradesh Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993; hereinafter referred to as ‘APCBC Act’. Resultantly, that writ petition - W.P.No.15094 of 2011 - was dismissed repelling the challenge levied to the impugned order. That decision of this Court has become final. Thereafter, PIL No.119 of 2014 was filed by Vishnuvardhan, who was obviously aware of the fate of W.P. No.15094 of 2011, in which he was power of attorney holder of petitioner No.2 therein viz., G. Srinath. We have compared the description of C. Vishnuvardhan in W.P. No.15094 of 2011 and C. Sai Vishnuvardhan in PIL No.119 of 2014. It is not disputed, in answer to our query, that it is the same person. That PIL No.119 of 2014 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one in proper manner. Such leave granted to the petitioner in that matter inures only to the petitioner therein, namely, Vishnuvardhan, if at all he was entitled to file one; even on the face of the finality of the verdict of this Court in W.P. No.15094 of 2011. Thereafter, this writ petition was presented before this Court on 27.04.2015. It is filed by the Sangham, which was petitioner No.1 in W.P. No.15094 of 2011, which was adjudicated under Article 226 of Constitution of India and dismissed by the Division Bench through the order dated 30.09.2013 as noted above.

4. With the aforesaid situation, we wanted the learned counsel for the petitioner to address us on the sustainability of the present PIL viz., PIL No.117 of 2015. He argued that the earlier judgment in W.P. No.15094 of 2011 does not operate as res judicata and that the cause of action pleaded in this PIL is different from that on the basis of which W.P. No.l5094 of 2011 was instituted. To buttress this argument, he made reference to the provisions of Section 11 of APCBC Act and argued that the cause of action recurs on failure to comply with the statutory command in that provision with the passage of every ten (10) years. According to him, after every ten (10) years, there has to be a revision in terms of Sub-Section (1) of Section 11 of APCBC Act and it is obligatory to consult the Commission in terms of that Sub-Section (2) of Section 11 of that Act. The alleged breach, once in every ten (10) years, gives a fresh cause of action, it is argued.

5. All the three aforementioned writ petitions, including the PIL in h