- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by Andhra Pradesh State Electricity board ("the Board" for short) on a certificate granted by the Andhra Pradesh high Court under Article 133 read with Article 134-A of the Constitution of india. The order granting the certificate is as follows: "An oral application is made by Shri T. Ananta Babu, the learned counsel for the respondent Board for the grant of leave to appeal to the supreme Court. As substantial questions of law of general importance to be decided by the Supreme Court are involved, we grant leave. "
(2.) Under Article 133 of the Constitution appeal lies to this Court if the high Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance and that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.
(3.) During the pendency of the appeal, the Andhra Pradesh State electricity Reforms Act, 1998 came to be passed which broadly bifurcated the appellant Board into two separate corporations Transmission corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (APTRANSCO) and Generation corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (APGENCO). An application IA No. 1 of 1999 has been filed for bringing on record APTRANSCO and APGENCO in place of the appellant Board. After hearing learned counsel for the parties on 10-8-1999 we passed the following order: "This application is for seeking substitution of two appellants in place of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board which had filed this appeal. The substitution is sought on account of the Andhra Pradesh State electricity Reforms Act, 1998. Reference has been drawn to clause (7) of section 23 of the Act to seek substitution. This has been opposed principally on the ground that right to damages for breach of contract is neither obligation nor debt and the appeal, in fact, abates. Reference has also been drawn to Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act. We have been referred to three decisions of this Court in Union of India v. Raman iron Foundry, Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan v. Thekittil geopalankutty Nair and M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequeira. Mr Bhimrao naik, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant wants some time to study the correct position in law. He says that the State of Andhra Pradesh may, in the circumstances, perhaps be required to be impleaded as a party. As prayed for by Mr Naik, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, four weeks' time is granted. List thereafter. ";