APHC010252182023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 0M0 . TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 482 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the Judgment in W.P. No.22167 of 2012, dated.04.12.2019 on the file of the High of A.P. Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rajampet Depot, Kadapa District. ...Petitioner AND The Regional Secretary, APSRTC, National Mazdoor Union, Kadapa on behalf of Sri V.M Rao, Conductor. ...Respondent lA NO: 3 OF 2024 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 to grant suspension of the award dated 06.07.2011 passed in ID No: 40 of 2009 the file of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ananthapur. on Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ARAVALA RAMA RAO SC FOR APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent: SRI S. M. SUBHAN The Court made the following JUDGMENT : APHC010252182023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0MS m [3545] TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI WRIT APPEAL NO: 482/?n?4 HARANADHA SARMA Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent be appropriate writ, order pr direction pleased to issue an ^ particularly on the in the nature of writ Ind^tli TT'"® ‘-D.No.40 of 2009 on the file of Industr al Tnbunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur as illegal, arbitrary and q ash the same by calling for records relating to the said award dated 06-07- I I ana pass Between: 1.THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC DISTRICT. RAJAMPET DEPOT, KADAPA ...appellant AND 1.THE REGIONAL SECRETARY APSRTC, Kadapa on behalf of Sri VM Rao, Conductor National Mazdoor Union, ...RESPONDENT lA NO: nOF 2n?4 in TnZ circumstances stated in 4he affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased m S ;o“o/202r"^°"^- ^ No: 22T67srd rsoiot: lA NO: 2 OF ?n92i 2 in the affidavit'fil«t fPraying that in the circumstances stated the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased oT' W P Nol2167"7pni,''""® lA NO: 3 OF 2nPd Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may e pleased to grant suspension of the award dated 06.07.2011 passed in ID No; 40 of 2009 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Ananthapur and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent: 1.S M SUBHAN The Court made the following: praying that in the circumstances stated -'N 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA I.A.No.02 of 2024 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL No.482 of 2024 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order, dated 04.12.2019 in W.P.No.22167 of 2012, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the said Writ Petition. Along with the appeal, the appellant filed I.A.No.02 of 2024 seeking to condone the delay of 703 days in filing the appeal against the order in W.P.No.22167 of 2012, dated 04.12.2019. 2. Having heard the respective counsels appearing for either side and on perusal of the averments made in the accompanying affidavit filed along with this application, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner/appellant has failed to show sufficient cause to condone the abnormal delay of 703 days in filing the appeal. In the case of Office of Chief Post Master General and others 3. vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another^ the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a petition filed for condonation of delay of 427 days after considering various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, observed as extracted hereunder; 2012 LawSuit(SC) 124 12. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government wing of the Government is a party before us. 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 bonafide, 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. were well court or a 13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several 5 months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape -in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used departments. The law shelters an anticipated benefit for government everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed of delay. as a huge delay. on the ground 4. In another judgment relied by the learned respondent, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while St counsel for the 1 dealing with an application to condone the delay of 663 days, came down heavily, while dismissing the said application in The State of Madhya Pradesh and others VS. Bherulal^ as extracted hereunder; 6. We are also of the view that the aforesaid adopted in what we have categorized cases”. The object appears to be to obtain approach is being earlier as “certificate a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest "2020 see OnLine Se 849 6 Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government suffers losses, it is time when the concerned officer responsible for the same bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any action is taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straight away counsels appear to address on merits without referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation. 7. We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible. 8. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner- State of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be deposited with the Mediation and 7 Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited i“. four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the special leave petition and a certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the said period of time. in 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another'wherein hereunder; it is held as “28. Though we are condonation of delay when there deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal conscious of the fact that in a matter of was no gross negligence or concession has to we are of the view that in advantage on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation everybody, including the Government. be adopted to advance substantial justice the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take of various earlier decisions. The claim several undoubtedly binds 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities the government that unless they have 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 ' 1992 (3) see 563 8 considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with an application to condone the delay of 916 days caused in preferring an appeal in case of University of Delhi vs. Union of India (UOI) and others hereunder; 6. held as 20. From a consideration of the view taken by this Court through the decisions cited supra the position is clear that, by and large, a liberal approach is to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay. The consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of the party namely the Government or the public bodies so as to apply a different yardstick but the ultimate consideration should be to render even handed justice to the parties. Even in such case the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or the adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. In that background while considering condonation of delay, the routine explanation would not be enough but it should be in the nature of ^ 2020(1) ALT 230 9 indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on -the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation. In the I case of Katiji (Supra) the entire conspectus relating to condonation of delay has kept in focus. However, what cannot also be lost sight is that the been consideration therein in the background of dismissal of the was application seeking condonation of delay in a case where there was delay of four days pitted against the consideration to be made that was required on merits regarding the upward compensation amounting to 800 per cent. revision of 21. As against the same, the delay in the instant facts LPA is 916 days and as such the consideration to condone made only if there is reasonable explanation and in filing the can be the condonation cannot be merely because the appellant is public body. The entire explanation noticed above, depicts the casual approach unmindful of the law of limitation despite being aware of the position of law. 7. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and as the petitioner fail to establish sufficient huge delay, this Court is inclined to dismiss I.A.No.02 of 2024 Accordingly. I.A.No.02 of 2024 is hereby dismissed stated supra cause for condonation of such 8. W.A.No.482 of 2024 In view of the dismissal of I.A.No.02 of 2024. the Writ Appeal shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10 shall stand closed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri Aravala Rama Rao, (SC for APSRTC) [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri S. M. Subhan, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies Cnr HIGH COURT DATED;02/09/2025 JUDGMENT WA NO. 482 OF 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS