JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy has drawn our attention to the proof of service filed by him. Perusal of the document filed in support of proof of service goes to show that the notice was served on 09.02.2021. Despite service of notice, the respondent/writ petitioner has not entered appearance. The cause list reflects the name of the counsel who had appeared for the respondent/writ petitioner at the stage of writ petition, but he is also not present. 3. The present writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 15.03.2016 passed in W.P.No.8231 of 2016. Relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: “2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for respondents that the subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by a common order of this Court in W.P.No.37713 of 2014 and batch dt.26.08.2015. In the said order, it was directed that the petitioners shall pay half of the additional consumption deposit amount demanded by the respondents. But, in the instant case, the amount collected by the respondents towards consumption security deposit is equivalent to two months present consumption charges and the said amount has to be adjusted in the future consumption charges. 3. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of in accordance with and in terms of the order in W.P.No.37713 of 2014 and batch dt.26.08.2015 with a further direction to the respondents to adjust the amount in excess of half of consumption deposit paid by the petitioner, in the future consumption charges of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. Perusal of the above would go to show that the writ petition came to be disposed of following the order dated 26.08.2015 in W.P.No.37713 of 2014 and batch. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy that against the said order dated 26.08.2015 passed in W.P.No.37713 of 2014 and batch, writ appeals, being W.A.No.968 of 2015 and batch, were preferred and by judgment dated 19.05.2016, the Division Bench allowed those writ appeals setting aside the order passed in W.P.No.37713 of 2014 and batch. 6. We have perused the copy of the judgment dated 19.05.2016 passed in W.A.No.968 of 2015 and batch (available in the appeal papers from Page No.48 onwards). 6. We have perused the copy of the judgment dated 19.05.2016 passed in W.A.No.968 of 2015 and batch (available in the appeal papers from Page No.48 onwards). Our attention is also drawn to a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 31.10.2016 passed in W.A.No.1088 of 2016 and batch, wherein there is a reference to the order dated 26.08.2015 in W.P.No.37713 of 2014 and batch being set aside by the Division Bench by judgment dated 19.05.2016 in W.A.No.968 of 2015 and batch. 7. In that view of the matter, we set aside the order under appeal in terms of the judgment dated 19.05.2016 passed in W.A.No.968 of 2015 and batch. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.