APHC010000542024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI r\i z B *'<S 'AiOw TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 49 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in lA. No.1 of 2021 in WP.No.25383 of 2021 dated 18.11.2022 on the file of the High Court. Between; The Commissioner, Atmakur Municipality, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh-518422 ...Petitioner AND 1. Appibhai Gari Abid Ali, S/o Appibhai Gari Abdul Vahab, Age 50 years, R/o 1-12-12 Gareeb Nagar, Atmakur, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. ..Respondent No. 1/Writ Petitioner in WP The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Valagapudi, Guntur District. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Gorantia, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh 2. 3. ...Respondent Nos. 2 and 3/Respondent No. 1 and 2 in WP lA NO: 2 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 judgment passed in I.A. No 1 of 2020 in suspend the impugned W.P.No.25383 of 2021 dt. 18.11.2022 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GUDAPATI LAKSHMINARAYANA SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: M/S DHEERA KANISHKA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3: GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010000542024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3545] TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 49/2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed in LA. No.I of 2021 in WP.No.25383 of 2021 dated 18.11.2022 and pass Between; 1.THE COMMISSIONER, ATMAKUR MUNICIPALITY, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-518422 ...APPELLANT AND 1.APPIBHAI GARI ABID ALI, S/O APPIBHAI GARI ABDUL VAHAB, AGE 50 YEARS, R/'O 1-12-12 GAREEB NAGAR, ATMAKUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. . 2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VALAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. SECRETARIAT, 3.THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, GORANTLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRAD ...RESPONDENT(S): lA NO: 1 OF 2024 2 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 pleased to condone the delay of 379 days in filing the appeal against judgment in I.A No 1 of 2021 in W.P.No.25383 of 2021 dt. 18.11.2022 and pass lA NO: 2 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 pleased to suspend the impugned judgment passed in I.A. No 1 of 2020 in W.P.No.25383 of 2021 dt. 18.11.2022 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal and may pass Counsel for the Appellant: I.Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES IV 2.DHEERA KANISHKA The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA I.A.No.OI of 2024 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL No.49 of 2024 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order, dated 18.11.2022 in I.A.No.OI of 2021 in W.P.No.25383 of 2021, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the Interlocutory Application and directed the respondents therein to implement the time scale of the writ petitioner from the date of filing of the writ petition. Along with the appeal, the appellant filed I.A.No.OI of 2024 seeking to condone the delay of 379 days in filing the appeal against the order in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.25383 of 2021, dated 18.11.2022. Having heard the respective counsels appearing for either side 2. and on perusal of the averments made in the accompanying affidavit filed along with this application and the contentions of the 1®' respondent in his counter affidavit, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner/appellant has failed to show sufficient cause to condone the abnormal delay of 379 days in filing the appeal. 4 3, In the case of Office of Chief Post Master General and others 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; 12. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well 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 court 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 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 or a we are 2012 LawSuit (SC) 124 4 used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 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 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 as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters 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 the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to-be dismissed on the ground of delay. us, In another judgment relied by the learned counsel for the 1 respondent, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with application to condone the delay of 663 days, came down heavily, while 4. an 6 dismissing the said application in The State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. BherulaP as extracted hereunder; 6. We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being adopted in what we have categorized earlier as “certificate cases”. The object appears to be to obtain 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 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. - 2020 see OnLine Se 849 % 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 for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible. pay 8. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner- State of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees five thousand) to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited in amount be recovered from the officers in twenty four weeks. The 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. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Postmaster General Media India Ltd. and another^ wherein it is held as and others vs. Living hereunder; conscious of the fact that in a matter of 28. Though we are condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to are of the view that in the Department cannot take advantage be adopted to advance substantial justice, we the facts and circumstances earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal of various 1992 (3) see 563 ' 'n \ • ■ 'V. 8 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. 29. 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 bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several 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 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'^ 6. held as hereunder: 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 " 2020(1) ALT 2.30 9 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 indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and wilt have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation. In the case of Katij.i (Supra) the entire conspectus relating to condonation of delay has been kept in focus. However, what cannot also be lost sight is that the consideration therein was in the background of dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay in a case where there was delay of four days pitted against the consideration that was required to be made on merits regarding the upward revision of / compensation amounting to 800 per cent. 21, As against the same, the delay in the instant facts in filing the LPA is 916 days and as such the consideration to condone can be made only if there is reasonable explanation and 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. 10 7. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court stated supra and the petitioner fail to establish sufficient cause for condonation of such huge delay, this Court is inclined to dismiss i.A.No.01 of 2024. 8. Accordingly, I.A.No.01 of 2024 is hereby dismissed. W.A.No.49 of 2024 In view of the dismissal of I.A.No.01 of 2024, the Writ Appeal shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, considering the fact that this appeal is filed against the Interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.25383 of 2021, it is made clear that it is open to the parties to request the learned Single Judge having roster for early disposal of the Writ Petition itself. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd./- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Valagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Gorantia, Guntur District, Andhra Prad 3. One CC to Sri. Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities [OPUC] 4. One CC to M/s Dheera Kanishka Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP For Services IV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED: 12/08/2025 ORDER WA NO. 49 OF 2024 ^ 0 8 SEP 2025 ' fa', Co ) ^VcHirentSectjoi^x^^^ DISMISSING THE WA WITHOUT COSTS