State Of Andhra Pradesh vs T. Lakshmi Rambabu
2021 Latest Caselaw 3709 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI


 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                     &
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA


                    WRIT APPEAL No.397 of 2021

                      (Through video conferencing)

State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat, Amaravati and others.
                                                    ...Appellants
                                 Versus

T. Lakshmi Rambabu,
S/o Late Suryanarayana Murthy,
Aged about 58 years,
R/o Visakhapatnam and others.
                                                    ...Respondents

Counsel for the appellants           : GP for Higher Education

Counsel for respondent No.1          : Mr. V.R. Avula

Date of hearing                      : 13.09.2021

Date of Judgment                     : 23.09.2021


                              JUDGMENT

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher

Education appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. V.R. Avula,

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

2. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 24.03.2021 passed

by the learned single Judge in Review I.A.No.1 of 2019, by which the

order dated 28.12.2016 passed in W.P.No.3875 of 2003 was sought to be

reviewed.

                                      2                                 HCJ & NJS,J
                                                                  WA No.397 of 2021

3. The writ petition was filed praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct

the respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'appellants') to regularize the

services of the writ petitioner in the post of Lecturer in Electronics with

effect from 18.09.1987 or from 01.04.1991, with all consequential

benefits.

4. On due consideration, by judgment dated 28.12.2016, the writ

petition was allowed directing the appellants to regularize the services of

the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1991 i.e., the date on which the post

was admitted to grant-in-aid, with all consequential benefits including

service and monetary benefits. It was further directed that the entire

exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date

of receipt of a copy of the order.

5. The appellants filed an application being I.A.No.1 of 2019 seeking

to review the order dated 28.12.2016. The said review application was

dismissed on 24.03.2021 observing as follows:

"3. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner, alleging

wilful disobedience of the said order passed in the

Writ Petition, filed Contempt Case No.1926 of

2017 on 14.09.2017. Initially, this Court, on

08.11.2017, issued notice before admission in the

Contempt Case. It is also important to note that

vide Memo No.1967/CE.A1/2017, dated

16.07.2018, the State Government directed the

Special Commissioner of Collegiate Education to

implement the order dated 27.12.2016 passed by

this Court in Writ Petition No.3875 of 2003 as was 3 HCJ & NJS,J WA No.397 of 2021

done in other similar cases of Sri K.R.K. Raju and

Sri Sarveswara Rao, Lecturers of Ideal College,

Kakinada and Sri S.S.S. Durga Ganesh, Lecturer

in Mrs. A.V.N. College, Visakhapatnam. The

same was followed by another Memo

No.1967/CE.A1/2017, dated 15.12.2018. While

the things being so, the petitioners herein, who

are respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition, filed

the present Review Petition on 01.10.2019.

4. It is the submission of the learned

counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner that

in the absence of any valid reason for the delay in

filing the review application, the review petition

filed by the petitioners herein is liable to be

dismissed. On the other hand, the learned

Government Pleader strenuously submits that

limitation period stipulated under the Limitation

Act, 1963 for filing review application, cannot be

made applicable to the review applications in the

Writ Petitions. Even assuming that the provisions

of the Limitation Act, 1963 with regard to period

of limitation for filing review application, cannot

be made strictly applicable to the review

applications in the Writ Petitions, the review

applications are required to be filed within a

reasonable time. In the instant case, though the

order in the Writ Petition came to be passed on 4 HCJ & NJS,J WA No.397 of 2021

28.12.2016 and though the Contempt Case was

also filed on 14.09.2017, after lapse of

approximately 3 years from the date of passing

the order, the present review application is filed

on 01.10.2019 without any valid and sufficient

reason. Since this Court is not inclined to

condone the unexplained delay, this Court does

not propose to go into the merits of the review

application. Accordingly, the review application is

dismissed. No costs.

However, the petitioners herein/respondents

in the Writ Petition, are granted six weeks' time to

comply with the order passed in the Writ

Petition."

6. Perusal of the above order goes to show that the learned single

Judge did not propose to go into the merits of the review application as

the same was filed approximately after three years from the date of

passing the order in the writ petition without assigning any valid and

sufficient reason and as such, the learned single Judge was not inclined to

condone the unexplained delay.

7. Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher

Education appearing for the appellants, submits that no period of

limitation is prescribed in respect of filing review applications against the

orders passed in writ petition and therefore, there is no question of

condoning the delay. In that view of the matter, the learned single Judge

erred in law in not entertaining the review application and on this ground 5 HCJ & NJS,J WA No.397 of 2021

alone, the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside. He

has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by this

Court in the case of M. Jagadeeswara Rao and others v. The

Divisional Forest Officer, Vizianagaram District and others

(W.A.No.881 of 2006, dated 01.09.2006), to buttress the contention

that the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable in review applications.

8. Mr. V.R. Avula, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner,

submits that while the contempt case being C.C.No.1926 of 2017 was

pending consideration, the 1st appellant had issued a memo dated

16.07.2018 directing the 2nd appellant to implement the orders of this

Court in respect of the writ petitioner as well other similar cases of K.R.K.

Raju, Sarveswara Rao and S.S.S. Durga Ganesh. However, the order of

the Court was not complied with and the review application being I.A.No.1

of 2019 came to be filed on 01.10.2019. It is submitted that as no

explanation was given whatsoever for inordinate delay of three years in

filing the review application, the learned single Judge did not consider the

case projected in the review application and therefore, there is no merit in

this writ appeal. It is further submitted that the present appeal is not

maintainable against the order in review application as the review

application having been dismissed, there is no merger of such order with

the final order in the writ petition. Mr. V.R. Avula relies on the decision of

Bench of five Judges of this Court in B.F. Pushpaleela Devi v. State of

A.P., and others, reported in AIR 2002 AP 420 and the decision of a

Full Bench of Madras High Court in the case of The District Collector,

Collectorate Office and Others v. N. Udayappan and Others

decided on 17.03.2021, reported in AIR 2021 Madras 99.

                                       6                                HCJ & NJS,J
                                                                  WA No.397 of 2021

9. In reply, Mr. K.V. Raghuveer submits that the aforesaid decisions

are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case inasmuch as

the review application was dismissed not on merits but on the ground of

delay.

10. Perusal of the order of the learned single Judge goes to show that

the learned single Judge had observed that even assuming that the

provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 with regard to the period of

limitation for filing review application cannot be made strictly applicable to

the review applications in the writ petitions, the review petitions are

required to be filed within a reasonable time. The learned single Judge

may not be correct in holding that the Limitation Act, 1963 may not be

applicable to the review applications in the writ petitions inasmuch as in

the case of M. Jagadeeswara Rao (supra), the Division Bench of this

Court had categorically observed that the provisions of the Limitation Act

are not applicable to the petition filed for review of an order passed by the

High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. The learned single Judge, however, observed that the review

applications are required to be filed within a reasonable time. The Division

Bench of this Court in M. Jagadeeswara Rao (supra) had also observed

that High Court is not bound to entertain in each and every case the

application for review ignoring unexplained delay of any length. However,

it was made clear that the application filed for review of the order passed

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be decided by

invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Act.

11. The Division Bench in M. Jagadeeswara Rao (supra) noted the

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v.

                                      7                              HCJ & NJS,J
                                                               WA No.397 of 2021

Bhailal Bhai, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006 and Tilokchand

Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, reported in AIR 1970 SC 898, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the proposition that a petition filed after

long lapse of time without proper explanation of delay can be dismissed.

12. Though the learned single Judge had used the expression "not

inclined to condone the unexplained delay", essentially, the Court did not

propose to go into the merits of the review application on the ground that

the review application was filed without any valid and sufficient reason

after approximately three years from the date of passing the order.

13. On perusing the review application, we did not find a single

averment as to why the review application came to be filed after three

years. However, to be sure that we have not overlooked any such

explanation, we asked Mr. Raghuveer as to whether there was any

explanation for delay of three years in filing the review application. He

candidly admits that this aspect of the matter was not adverted to in the

review application.

14. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, without going into the

question as to whether an appeal against an order rejecting an application

for review on the ground of unexplained long delay, is maintainable, we

hold that no interference with the order of the learned single Judge is

called for.

15. Resultantly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. All pending

miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                           NINALA JAYASURYA, J
                                                                 Nn