APHC010310302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADES^d- AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE '' PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANANP- AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARM^^ WRIT APPEAL NO: 750 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the order 11.07.2023 in W.P.No.17212 of 2022 on the file of the Higlv-' Court. Between; Sri Kalahasteeswara Swamyvari Devasthanam,, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Sri Kalahasti, Sri Kalahasti Division, Tirupati District, A.P. ...Petitionet-- AND 1. A V V S D V Prasad Sharma, S/o. Satyanarayana Shastri, Aged about 47 years. Working as Purohit (Contract basis), Sri Kalahasteeswara Swamyvari Devasthanam, Sri Kalahasti, Sri Kalahasti Division, Tirupati District, (formerly Chittoor District), A.P. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur (Endowments) Department^ District, A.P. 3. The Commissioner, Endowments, A.P. Gollapudi, Vijayawada Rural, NTR District, A.P. ...Respondents r % lA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 in W.P.No.17212 of 2022, suspend the order dated 11.07.2023 made pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. ^ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T VENU GOPAL SC FOR ENDOWMENTS (RAYALASEEMA REGION) Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI BHARAT BABU.N ^ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010310302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 01^0 'm [3545] L*l TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 750/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent begs to present this Memorandum of Writ Appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 11.07.2023 made in W.P.No.17212 of 2022, Between: 1.SRI KALAHASTEESWARA SWAMYVARI DEVASTHANAM,, REP. BY SRI KALAHASTI ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI KALAHASTI. DIVISION, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P. ...APPELLANT AND 1.A V V S D V PRASAD SHARMA, S/0. SATYANARAYANA SHASTRI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. WORKING AS PUROHIT (CONTRACT BASIS), SRI KALAHASTEESWARA SWAMYVARI DEVASTHANAM, SRI KALAHASTI, SRI KALAHASTI DIVISION, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, (FORMERLY CHITTOOR DISTRICT), A.P. 2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 3.THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS, A.P. VIJAYAWADA RURAL, NTR DISTRICT, A.P. GOLLAPUDI, ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 M lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to condone the delay of 691 Appeal against the order dated 11.07,2023made in W.P.No.17212 of 2022 and pass such days in filing the above Writ lA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to suspend the order dated 11.07.2023 made in W.P.No.17212 of 2022, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal and pass such Counsel for the Appellant: 1.T VENU GOPAL SC FOR ENDOWMENTS (RAYALASEEMA REGION) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BHARAT BABU.N 2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 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 2025 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL No.750 of 2025 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order, dated 11.07.2023 in W.P.No.17212 of 2022. Along with the appeal, the appellant filed I.A.No.OI of 2025 seeking to condone the delay of 691 days in filing the appeal against the order in W.P.No.17212 of 2022, dated 11.07.2023. Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record. 2. In the accompanying affidavit filed along with I.A.No.OI of 2025, 3. the relevant Paragraph i.e.. Paragraph No.9 is extracted herein under:- I submit that after receipt of a copy of the order in the above writ petition, the appellant has approached the then Standing Counsel for legal opinion for filing the Writ Appeal against the said order. While so, by the time the then Standing Counsel gave legal opinion, there is change in the Government and accordingly, there is change in the Standing Counsel of the respondent/writ petitioner was pressuring for implementation of the aforesaid order under Appeal, the appellant has again approached its present standing counsel for legal opinion and after going through 9. St Appellant Temple. Meanwhile, as the 1 4 the records, the present standing counsel has advised the appellant to challenge the order under appeal as the said order under appeal as the said order will lead to multiplicity of proceedings and there are chances of succeeding in the above appeal. Hence, the present appeal is being filed. Under the circumstances, there is a delay of 691 days in filing the present writ appeal and the same is neither willful nor wanton, but in the facts and circumstances stated above. Under the circumstances, unless this Hon’ble Court is pleased to condone the delay in filing the above writ appeal and pending the above writ appeal if the order under appeal is not suspended, the appellant will suffer grave and irreparable loss. On perusal of the above averments made in the accompanying affidavit,, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner/appellant has failed to show sufficient cause to condone the abnormal delay of 691 days in filing the appeal. 4. 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 5. extracted hereunder: 12. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the 2012 LawSuit(SC) 124 5 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 or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are 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. conscious 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 bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual kept pending for several was explanation that the file was months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special 6 cl^ 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 6. 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 dismissing the said application in The State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Bherulal^ as extracted hereunder: an 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 ^ 2020 SCCOnLineSC 849 % 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 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. and even in 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 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 Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited in 8 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another^ wherein it is held as hereunder: 7. “28. 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 bona fides, 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. 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 bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to was ^ 1992 (3) see 563 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.” 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; 8. The 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 consideration for condonation of delay would not the status of the party namely the Government or the delay. The depend on 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 ‘'2020(1) ALT 230 10 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 will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation. In the case of Katiji (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. 9. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court stated supra and the petitioner failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of such huge delay, this Court is inclined to dismiss I.A.No.01 of 2025. 10. Accordingly, I.A.No.01 of 2025 is hereby dismissed. 11 W.A.No.750 of 2025 In view of the dismissal of I.A.No.01 of 2025, the Writ Appeal shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. T Venu Gopal, SC For Endowments Region) Advocate [OPUC] t 5 2., One CC to Sri. Bharat Babu.N, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP For Endowments, High Court of Andhra [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies. (Rayalaseema Pradesh AL -ft HIGH COURT DATED:09/09/2025 ORDER WA NO. 750 OF 2025 X 2 0 SEP 2025 C0, o^ Current section ■*ry DISMISSING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS