APHC010413492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI I.A.No.1 of 2025 in/and Writ Appeal No: 925 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-56 [3483] Tirumala Tirupati Devastanams and others ...Appellant(s) Vs. B Satyanarayana ...Respondent ********** Advocate for Appellants: Mr. C. Srinivasa Baba Advocate for Respondent: Mr. K. Koutilya CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 16th September, 2025. P C : The present application has been filed seeking condonation of 385 days delay in preferring the writ appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.06.2024, passed in W.P.No.16370 of 2018. 2. On a perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay, it can be seen that the delay has not at all been explained satisfactorily. For purposes of reference, the application which contains the explanation is in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, which are reproduced hereinbelow: “1) I am the Deponent herein and I am representing on behalf of the petitioners/appellants Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (“TTD” for short), as such, I am well acquainted with the facts of the case. 2 HCJ & RCJ IA_1_2025 IN/AND WA_925_2025 2) It is respectfully submitted that the present writ appeal is preferred aggrieved against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16370 of 2018, dated 18.06.2024. The order of the learned Single Judge was received in 16th December, 2024. 3) It is submitted that the though the orders communicated to the appellants in 16th December, 2024, the order was sent to the legal opinion thereafter it was circulated to the Administrative Department of the TTD, due to that the delay of 385 days had occurred for preferring this writ appeal. The delay in preferring the writ appeal is neither willful nor wanton. Unless the delay is condoned by this Hon'ble Court, the appellants will suffer irreparable loss and prejudice.” 3. The only explanation rendered is in paragraph 3, after admitting that the order impugned was communicated to the applicants on 16.12.2024, which thereafter was purportedly sent for legal opinion and then circulated to the Administrative Department of the TTD. While the judgment was rendered on 18.06.2024, the writ appeal was preferred only on 26.07.2025. Although the applicant was not expected to explain each and every days delay yet the explanation rendered in paragraph 3 is far from convincing and much less can it be called satisfactory, which would have otherwise enabled us to condone the delay. 4. Although learned counsel for the applicant states that the delay had also occasioned on account of change of Standing Counsel for the TTD, yet that assertion is not reflected in the affidavit in question. 3 HCJ & RCJ IA_1_2025 IN/AND WA_925_2025 5. In our opinion, the application based upon the explanation rendered in the same, warrants no condonation. Accordingly, the interlocutory application is dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeal shall stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J. SSN