ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. A small procedural issue has held up the Public Interest Litigation petition from adjudication for the last nearly seven years. On 03.10.2018, the first respondent filed PIL No. 129 of 2018 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench praying for the following reliefs: "a) "Treat and entertain the instant petition as a Public Interest Litigation" as the same involves greater public interest; b) By an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, hold and declare that the resolution dt. 4th of September 2018 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent Commission as per se illegal, arbitrary, draconian and highly unconstitutional which defeats the spirit of transparency in the proceedings held before the State Commission and therefore does not stand to the scrutiny of law; c) By an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, quash and set aside the resolution dt. 4th of September 2018 passed by the respondent commission as the same is against the public interest and defeats the spirit of transparency in the court and quasi-judicial proceedings held before the respondent commission; d) By an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, restrain the respondent commission from eliminating any of the previous records as per specified in the impugned resolution dt. 4th of September 2018; e) By way of interim relief kindly be pleased to stay the effect, operation, and/or implementation of resolution dt. 4th of September 2018 passed by the respondent Commission during the pendency of the instant petition; f) By way of interim relief kindly be pleased to restrain the respondent-Commission from eliminating any of the previous records as specified in the impugned resolution dt. 4th of September 2018;" 3. It is the case of the appellant that after pleadings were completed, arguments commenced from 04.02.2019 and the matter was kept for 13.02.2019, as part-heard. Further, on conclusion of arguments by the counsel for the respondent(s) herein, leave was sought to amend the petition. On 14.02.2019, this leave was orally sought and the prayer was to amend the prayer clause seeking penal action to be taken against the concerned individuals who are found involved in destruction of public records. Leave was orally prayed for and granted by the order of 14.02.2019. On 14.02.2019, this leave was orally sought and the prayer was to amend the prayer clause seeking penal action to be taken against the concerned individuals who are found involved in destruction of public records. Leave was orally prayed for and granted by the order of 14.02.2019. The operative part of the order reads as under: "In the meantime, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to suitably amend the petition, particularly its prayer clause praying for penal action to be taken against the concerned who are found involved in destruction of public records. Leave, as prayed for, is allowed." 4. The matter was stood over for 20.02.2019. On 20.02.2019, an application for effecting the amendment incorporating subsequent events was tendered. On the ground that leave has already been granted, the application was allowed. The Court further observed as under: "In fact, we find that, having considering grant of leave as aforesaid, there was no reason for taking out any such application. In that view of the matter, we impose costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the High Court Bar Association, Nagpur. Petitioner to serve amended copy of petition to the respondents, who shall file additional affidavit-in-reply. Amendment be carried out forthwith." 5. The appellant herein - Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission moved for recall of the orders of 14.02.2019 and 20.02.2019. The ground urged was that before the amendments were allowed, no notice of the amendment application was issued and the appellant had no opportunity to counter and question the need for amendment and the legitimacy for the amendment at the late stage of the proceedings. The Court however dismissed the recall applications stating that no prejudice has been caused. 6. All three orders - 14.02.2019, 20.02.2019 and the final order dismissing the recall order dated 25.03.2019, are challenged before us. 7. We have heard Mr. S K Rungta, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Ms. Dania Nayyar, learned counsel for the first respondent. 8. We feel that in the interest of justice, the impugned orders are to be set aside and the matter(s) ought to be remanded to the High Court. The High Court may issue a short notice on the amendment application to the appellant herein and to the parties sought to be newly added. Mr. 8. We feel that in the interest of justice, the impugned orders are to be set aside and the matter(s) ought to be remanded to the High Court. The High Court may issue a short notice on the amendment application to the appellant herein and to the parties sought to be newly added. Mr. S K Rungta, learned senior counsel undertakes that his client will, without seeking any adjournment, file reply to the amendment application immediately. The High Court may consider the amendment application and pass a suitable order on the application on its own merits without being influenced by any earlier order of the High Court or by this Court. Thereafter, the High Court may hear the main Writ Petition finally and pass suitable orders thereon. Considering that the matter is of 2018, we request the High Court to dispose of the same expeditiously. The parties to appear before the concerned Bench of the High Court on 24.02.2025. 9. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.