Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Dy.Superintendent Of Police, vs J.Venkata Rami Reddy on 1 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2021
in
W.A.No.469 of 2021
and
W.A.No.469 of 2021
(Proceedings through physical mode)
The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,
Kurnool Range, Kunrool (on behalf of the Director General),
Anti Corruption Bureau, PN Bus Station, Dr. NTR Admn.
Building, 2nd Floor, Vijayawada, Krishna District ... Applicant/Appellant
Versus
J. Venkata Rami Reddy, Deputy Tahsildar,
O/o. the Spl. Deputy Collector, Srisailam
Project, Kurnool District, and another ... Respondents
Counsel for the applicant/appellant : Mr. S.M. Subhani, standing counsel
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy
ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT
Dt: 01.11.2021
(Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
I.A.No.1 of 2021 is an application for condonation of delay of 1275 days in
re-presentation of the writ appeal; whereas I.A.No.2 of 2021 is an application for
condonation of delay of 114 days in presentation of the writ appeal against the
judgment dated 25.04.2016 in W.P.No.34918 of 2014.
2. The material part of the affidavit filed in support of both the applications
states that the name of the new standing counsel for Anti Corruption Bureau was
not printed in the cause-list and, therefore, the matter could not be noticed and the
investigating agency could not advance arguments during the course of hearing.
The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by judgment dated 25.04.2016,
which was noticed during the last week of July 2016. After information was sent to
the State Government to file writ appeal, steps were taken and writ appeal was filed
on 14.09.2016. The writ appeal was returned from section on 17.09.2016 for
HCJ & LK,J
W.A.No.469 of 2021
submission of relevant documents, which could not complied with because the file
was misplaced during shifting of the office of the then standing counsel. After
bifurcation of High Court, file was reconstructed and, thereafter, lockdown was
imposed due to COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, delay of 1275 days had taken place
for re-presentation of the writ appeal.
3. The reasons assigned and the explanation offered for delay in presentation
of the writ appeal may be understandable as the name of the new standing counsel
for Anti Corruption Bureau was not printed in the cause-list. However, the reason
for delay of 1275 days in re-presentation of the writ appeal is not at all convincing.
Not only day-to-day delay has not been explained, but even en bloc explanation for
condonation of delay by mentioning that the file was misplaced due to shifting of
the office of the then standing counsel for Anti Corruption Bureau, fails to impress
us. The affidavit of the then standing counsel for Anti Corruption Bureau has not
been filed along with the applications, showing the responsibility of missing of the
writ appeal papers due to shifting of the office. The explanation offered, thus,
appears to be self-serving and not supported by the statement of the then standing
counsel.
4. Considering the feeble explanation in explaining the delay, we are not at all
convinced that the delay appears to be condonable. It is not a case of delay of a
few weeks or a month or so. It is a case of delay of almost four years, which the
applicants/appellants want to be condoned, that too, on self-serving explanation.
5. For the foregoing reasons, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2021 are dismissed.
6. Consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
MRR
