Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Pothuri Anuradha on 9 February, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
[ 3446 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1199 OF 2023
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of Writ Appeal
against the orders of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 17.10.2022 in
WP No.33666 of 2022 on the file of the High Court.
Between:
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary
to Govt., Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.
2. The District Collector, Kadapa District
3. The Tahsildar, Rayachoti Rayachoti Mandal Kadapa District
...APPELLANTS
AND
1. POTHURI ANURADHA, W/o Pothuri Venugopal died Rep by its
GPA Holder Mohammad Rail Rio D No 840 Opp Kurapati
Petrol Bunk Non Teaching Colony Tirupathi Chitoor District
2. The Joint Registrar, Rayachoti Rayachoti Mandal Kadapa
District ....Respondent (Respondent) (R2 is not necessary
party in this affidavit)
...RESPONDENTS
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the
delay of (253) days in filing the writ appeal against the order
passed in W.P.No. 33666 of 2022 pending disposal of the Writ
Appeal and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the
operation of the order dated 17-10-2022 made in W.P.No. 33666
of 2022 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal and pass
Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP)
Counsel for the Respondents: N PRAMOD
The Court made the following:
1. I.A.No.1 of 2023 is an application seeking condonation of 253
days delay in preferring an appeal against the judgment and order
dated 17.10.2022 in W.P.No.33666 of 2022.
2. The writ appeal was filed on 28.07.2023. The explanation
rendered in the application is that the officers concerned were busy
in preparation of electoral rolls pursuant to the notification issued
by the Election Commission of India dated 14.07.2022. It can be
seen that the official publication of the electoral rolls was done on
30.12.2022. There is no explanation whatsoever, with effect from
30.12.2022 till the filing of the appeal on 28.07.2023. All that is
stated in the application is that being a District Election Officer of
the concerned District, the applicant, on account of administrative
reasons could not file the present writ appeal.
3. For facility of reference the material paragraph bearing No.5
is reproduced hereunder:
"5. Being the District Election Officer, Annamayya District
and due to administrative reasons, there is delay of 253 days in
filing the above writ appeal, which is neither willful nor wanton,
but for the reasons stated above. If the delay of 253 days is not
condoned, the State will put to hardship."
4. In our opinion, there is no satisfactory explanation rendered
by the applicant in explaining the delay in preferring the appeal.
5. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment
rendered by the Apex Court in Postmaster General vs. Living Media
India Ltd.,1, wherein it was held:
"28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of
condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or
deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has
to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view
that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take
advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of
impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology
of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the
modern technologies being used and available. The law of
limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the
Government.
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government
bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they
have a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and
there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual
explanation that the file was kept pending for several
months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape
in the process. The government departments are under a special
(2012) 3 SCC 563
obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with
diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception
and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the
government departments. The law shelters everyone under the
same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."
6. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find merit in the
present application which is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently,
the Writ Appeal also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
SSN
