ORDER :

1. The petitioner filed this Interlocutory Application under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. seeking review of the order dated 25.10.2019 passed in W.P. No. 46248 of 2016, wherein and whereby this Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus declaring G.O.Ms. No. 9, Education [(SE:Vig.I(1)] Department, dated 16.04.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent i.e. the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Education Department sanctioning prosecution of the petitioner by exercising power conferred by Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Act and for any other cognate offence under the provisions of law for the time being in force.

2. The brief facts of the case are that when the petitioner was working as a District Educational Officer in Guntur District during the year 2007, one Mr. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, the Correspondent of Aravinda High School, Kunchavapalli Village made a complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau against the petitioner stating that he demanded Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) for forwarding supplementary Nominal Rolls of one candidate and for doing official favour to process and to recommend for the up-gradation of VI to X Class. Pursuant there to, Crime No. 12/TCT-ACB-VJA/2007 was registered against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act by the ACB. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent ACB officials laid a trap successfully on 13.11.2007. The 2nd respondent moved the Government for sanction for prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The Government ordered the District Secretary to submit a Final report on 12.01.2009. The Government vide Memo No. 18195/SE-Vig.1(1)/2007-7, dated 25.03.2011, after carefully considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, decided that initiation of departmental enquiry is sufficient to probe the matter in detail instead of prosecution in a Court of law and also passed orders on 28.05.2011. Thereafter, on 25.08.2011 the 2nd respondent had furnished Articles of charges in respect of trap case. The request of the 2nd respondent for sanction of prosecution of petitioner under Section 19 was not accorded by the Government in various proceedings:

1. Rc. No. 219/RCT-VGT/2007-S.17, dated 28.09.2010

2. Rc. No. 219/RCT-VGT/2007-S.17, dated 29.09.2010

3. Rc. No. 219/RCT-VGT/2007-S.17, dated Dec. 2010

4. Rc. No. 219/RCT-VGT/2007-S.17, dated 28.01.2011

5. Rc. No. 219/RCT-VGT/2007-S.17, dated 07.05.2011

6. Rc. No. 219/RCT-VGT/2007-S.17, dated 18.06.2011

Instead of prosecution, the Government preferred the departmental enquiry. The 2nd respondent’s request for closure of the case before the Special Court was dismissed in RCs. No. 2 of 2012. On persuasion of the 2nd respondent, the Government issued impugned G.O.Ms. No. 9, dated 16.04.2014 granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 19 of the Act, the same was modified on some technical defects and issued another G.O.Ms. No. 14, dated 06.05.2014, according sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act for taking cognizance of the said offence by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed on 05.06.2014. The Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada had taken the case on file and numbered the same as C.C. No. 11 of 2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl. Pet. No. 5459 of 2014 for quashing the G.O.Ms. No. 9, dated 16.04.2014 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate petition in view of filing of the charge sheet and taking cognizance of the same by the Court. Hence, filed this writ petition to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned G.O.Ms.