Telangana High Court
The Commissioner, vs M.A. Wahab 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. 797 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
Sri G. Narayana, learned counsel appears for appellant.
Sri S. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appears for
Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 and 2/writ petitioners.
Sri S. Suman, learned Government Pleader for
Services-III appears for respondent No.5.
2. The present Writ Appeal is directed against the
impugned order dated 21.03.2024 passed in Writ Petition
No.7100 of 2021 whereby the learned writ Court has disposed
of the Writ Petition in terms of the order dated 11.03.2024 in
Writ Petition No.15533 of 2022 i.e., with a direction to the
respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner
therein for rendering the services in the organization from
2000 onwards and regularize his services against regular
vacancy.
2 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
3. The instant Writ Appeal suffers from a delay of 514 days
for condonation of which Interlocutory Application No.1 of
2025 with an improved affidavit to explain the delay has been
filed. The stand of the appellant in the said Interlocutory
Application and the affidavit filed to further explain the delay
is contained in para Nos.2 to 9 which are extracted hereunder.
An objection thereto has been filed by the writ petitioners
stating that the only ground which is being taken by the
appellant is the frequent transfer of Secretaries and the
Administrators.
"2. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, but has occurred
due to administrative and procedural circumstances beyond the
control of this Authority.
3. Initially, time was consumed in obtaining the certified copy of
the impugned order and in overcoming communication gaps
between departments during transition periods.
4. Frequent transfers of Secretaries of QQSUDA disrupted
continuity in file processing and decision-making. The following
officers held charge during the relevant period:
*Smt. E. Archana (09.08.2023-30.09.2024)
*Smt. G. Nalini Padmavathi (FAC, 30.09.2024-16.12.2024)
*Sri S. Yella Reddy (16.12.2024-31.05.2025)
*Smt. V. Rama Devi (31.05.2025 onwards)
5. Similarly, Administrators also changed frequently, further
contributing to procedural delays:
*Sri D. Ronald Rose, IAS (FAC, 05.07.2023-26.06.2024)
*Smt. Amrapali Kata, IAS (FAC, 26.06.2024- 20.08.2024)
3 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
*Sri K. Ilambarithi, IAS (FAC, 11.11.2024-27.04.2025)
*Sri R.V. Karnan, IAS (FAC, 27.04.2025 onwards)
6. Each change required fresh handing over and taking over of
charge, thereby causing shifting reasons for delay at different
stage
7. The appointment of a new Standing Counsel, Sri G. Narayana,
necessitated further time for review of voluminous case records
and preparation of the appeal.
8. The Department also issued instructions to proceed cautiously
and adhere to procedural formalities before filing the appeal,
which prolonged the process.
9. Thus, the delay was not due to a single cause but arose from
subsequent changes in administrative control and officer postings,
each creating new procedural bottlenecks."
4. On consideration of the grounds urged and after hearing
the learned counsel for the parties, we are not satisfied that any
sufficient cause is shown for condoning the delay of 514 days
in preferring the instant Writ Appeal. The transfer of
Secretaries and Administrators which had taken place at
certain intervals does not amount to sufficient cause for such a
huge delay in preferring the instant Writ Appeal. Bureaucratic
red tape and procedural delays in preferring the appeal 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
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969
4 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
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.
5. 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
