The Engineerinchief vs B.Nagesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3260 Tel

Telangana High Court

The Engineerinchief vs B.Nagesh on 20 March, 2025

     THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                            AND
           THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

                        I.A.No.1 of 2025
                             IN/AND
                  WRIT APPEAL No.318 of 2025

COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul):


         Ms. M. Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-

II, for the appellants and Sri M. Balagangadharaiah, learned

counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

2. I.A.No.1 of 2025, seeking condonation of delay of 352

days in filing the appeal, is taken up.

3. The order of learned Single Judge dated 15.02.2024 in

W.P.(TR).No.2645 of 2017 is called in question in this intra-court

appeal filed on 14.02.2025.

4. The delay is sought to be explained by contending that

after receiving the copy of the impugned order dated 15.02.2024,

a representation was received by concerned Superintending

Engineer, Sangareddy. Thereafter, Engineer-in-Chief,

Hyderabad, by communicated dated 26.04.2024 sought for legal

opinion from the Government Pleader. In turn, after receiving

the legal opinion, the Engineer-in-Chief, Hyderabad, issued

necessary instructions on 14.06.2024. In turn, Government

issued instructions dated 01.11.2024 to file the appeal and in

turn, the present appeal has been filed.

5. The limitation to file the Writ Appeal is thirty days. The

aforesaid events show that the file processed in a snail speed.

Merely because there was correspondence between the

authorities of the Department for considerable long time, it

cannot be said that they acted with "due diligence". It is trite

that there are no separate set of limitation rules for the

Government (see Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Limited 1,

where 51 days delay was not condoned). If there is a delay, it

must be explained by furnishing "sufficient cause". In the

manner file proceeded, it shows that the decision itself was taken

after the period of limitation. For example, in paragraph No.4 of

affidavit filed in support of the I.A., it is mentioned that the

Engineer-in-Chief, Hyderabad, on 26.04.2024 instructed to

obtain legal opinion. Thereafter, he took necessary instructions

on 14.06.2024. The explanation of two months delay is absent.

Thereafter, the appeal was filed on 14.02.2025. Thus, we are

(2015) 9 SCC 102

unable to hold that the appellants have shown 'sufficient cause'

and therefore, the enormous delay of 352 days cannot be

condoned.

6. Hence, the I.A. is dismissed. Consequently, the Writ

Appeal is rejected. No costs.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also

stand closed.

___________________ SUJOY PAUL, ACJ

____________________ RENUKA YARA, J

Date: 20.03.2025 Myk/Tsr