APHC010416762016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 18832/2016 Between: Sheetal Kumar Jain and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Principal Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. E V V S RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. A S C BOSE 3. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) 4. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV (AP) The Court made the following: I.A.No.1 of 2024 The petitioners 1 and 2 had filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the order of rejection, by the 5th respondent, in relation to the applications submitted by the petitioners, for cancellation of a lay out permission. This writ petition was disposed of, by an order dated 18.04.2023, giving liberty to the petitioners to file an application before the concerned Urban Development Authority along with relevant record with a further direction to the Urban Development Authority to consider such application as and when it is filed. Petitioner No.1 has now filed the present recall petition on the ground that his mother, who is the 2nd petitioner, had passed away on 10.06.2021 much before the disposal of the writ petition. The death certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Kakinada has also been enclosed. Sri M. Achyut, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this court has the inherent power to recall its own order and set aside the judgment dated 18.04.2023 and relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Budhia Swain and others vs. Gopinath Deb1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph No.6 of the above said judgment after considering the law on this issue had held that inherent power to recall can be exercised when it is shown that a necessary party had died and the estate of said party was not represented. In the present case, the 2nd petitioner who is a necessary party had passed away before the judgment had been delivered and this Court had deliver the said Judgment in ignorance of the demise of the 2nd writ petitioner. Sri Achyut, learned counsel would submit that the Urban Development Authority is not willing to accept the representation of the 1st petitioner on the ground that the order of this Court required both the petitioners to apply for cancellation of the lay out permit. In the circumstances, this application is allowed and the judgment of this Court dated 18.04.2023 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to filed. 1 (1999) 4 SCC 396 I.A.No.2 of 2024 This is an application filing for condoning the delay of 182 days in representing the applications. Heard Sri M. Achyut, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri N. Sri Hari, learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat and A.S.C Bose, learned counsel for the respondents. In view of the circumstances set out in the affidavit filed in support of this application, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to condone the delay in representation. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2024 is allowed. I.A.No.3 of 2024 The person sought to be impleaded is the husband of the deceased 2nd writ petitioner and the father of the 1st petitioner. As the said application is filed to bring L.Rs on record, this Court does not find any reason to refuse such a request. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the proposed party is impleaded as petitioner No.3. Registry is directed to carry out necessary corrections in the bundle. ______________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J RJS