The Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development ... vs R Siddappa
2025 Latest Caselaw 6598 Tel

Telangana High Court

The Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development ... vs R Siddappa on 19 November, 2025

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                              AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

                         I.A. No.1 of 2025
                               in/and
                   WRIT APPEAL No. 1100 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Sri G. Narayana, learned counsel appears for appellant.

Sri K. Ramakrishna, learned counsel appears for

Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent

No.1/writ petitioner.

Sri S. Suman, learned Government Pleader for

Services-III appears for respondent No.3.

2. The present Writ Appeal is directed against the

impugned order dated 05.02.2024 passed in Writ Petition

No.34356 of 2022 whereby the learned writ Court directed the

respondent authorities to implement the order dated

02.11.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.8545 of

2011, within a period of two (2) months. The learned Tribunal

had in the order dated 02.11.2011 extended the relief, as

directed in O.A.No.7908 of 2011 vide order dated 22.09.2011, 2 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J

to the writ petitioner that he was entitled for retrospective

regularization of his services for the purposes of pension and

pensionary benefits. Respondent No.1 had approached the writ

Court aggrieved by the non-implementation of the order dated

02.11.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.8545 of

2011 for the purposes of pension and pensionary benefits

without any monetary benefit as was done in the case of

others.

3. The instant Writ Appeal suffers from a delay of 566

days. Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2025 seeks

condonation of delay on the grounds contained in para 11 of

the accompanying affidavit which is extracted hereunder:

"It is submitted that there is a delay in filing the present Appeal due to getting the order copy and communication gap, transfers of the concerned officers and coordination by the concerned in perusing the case and the delay is neither willful nor wanton only due to the above said reason."

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the

delay is not condoned and if such a relief is granted to the writ

petitioner, it would lead to serious repercussions.

3 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has strongly

objected to the prayer for condonation of delay.

6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions of the

parties and the only ground urged on behalf of the appellant,

we are of the view that the appellant has failed to furnish any

sufficient cause whatsoever for condonation of delay of 566

days in preferring the instant Writ Appeal.

7. Bureaucratic red tape and procedural delays in preferring

the appeals by the State or its instrumentalities had often been

frowned upon by the Apex Court in a series of judgments,

such as, Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing

Board and others 1. The machinery of the organization does not

come to a standstill on transfers of the Heads of the

Departments or any Subordinate Officer. Therefore, we are not

inclined to condone the delay.

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 4 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J

8. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application is

dismissed. Consequently, the instant Writ Appeal is also

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

____________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ

_____________________ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J 19th NOVEMBER, 2025.

kvni