JUDGMENT : 1. Special leave granted. Heard counsel on both sides. 2. In paragraph 5 of the impugned order it is observed as under : "In W.P. No. 853/94, the petitioner somehow maneuvered to continue in the office of Public Prosecutor of West Godavari District by circumventing the order of this Court in W.P. No.7540/93 dated 3.12.1993 in an intelligent manner by filing the present W.P.No.853/94 for the same relief as claimed in the connected W.P. No.5493/93, but with further prayer for interim relief of maintaining status quo in reference to the appointment of Public Prosecutor for West Godavari District, pending disposal of the petition on merits." These observations are objected to on the ground that they were wholly unwarranted. We are inclined to think so. The facts reveal that the appellant before us had earlier filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of one another as Public Prosecutor for West Godavari when he himself was working as Special Public Prosecutor. The said W.P. No.7540/93 was allowed on 3.12.1993 and the appointment of the named person was set aside on the ground that there was a status quo order made in another matter which was then pending. The Government was further directed to consider the matter afresh within three months from the date of receipt of the order and till then the interim order made in W.P.No.7540/93 was ordered to continue. Without waiting for the expiry of the three months period the appellant filed a petition. Writ Petition No.853/94, on 24.1.1994 and obtained an order for the continuance of the status quo and thus continued to hold the office of Special Public Prosecutor, Eluru, West Godavari District. It is this conduct of the appellant which according to the learned Judges in the High Court deserves to be condemned. There is no allegation that he had suppressed or withheld any material facts. There was an order in W.P.No.7540/ 93 and after the appellant filed W.P.No.8531 94 he sought a similar order which was granted. If he was guilty of suppression of material facts from the Court and secured the order, the Court would perhaps have been justified in making an adverse comment. That not being so, we are inclined to think that the observation quoted above needs to be expunged. We so direct. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. That not being so, we are inclined to think that the observation quoted above needs to be expunged. We so direct. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. The order directing the appellant to pay Rs.1,000/-by.,' way of cost will also be set aside.