APHC010056572022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA -Si AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAQ lA No.1 of 2022 r" In/and WRIT APPEAL NO: 192 OF 2022 lA No.1 of 2022 Between: Nellore Municipal Corporation, Rep. by Commissioner Nellore District Nellore, S.P.S.R. ...PETITIONEfiU AND 1. S. K. Munwar Ahmed, S/o.Abdul Khader, R/o.2-571, Raja Rami Nagar, 5*^ Line, Kothuru BIT-1, Nellore Rural Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning (FW.P.C.-III) Department, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District. 3. The Director, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Amaravati District. Guntur ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 873 days in filing the appeal against order in W.P. No. 9946 of 2019 dated 20.08.2019. WRIT APPEAL NO: 192 OF 2022 ^ Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20-08-2019 in W.P.No.9946 of 2019 on the file of High Court^ lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the peWion, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order in W.P.No.9946 of 2019 dated 20.08.2019 disposal of the writ appeal. ^ Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI A. S. C. BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS) Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.2:GP FOR SERVICES Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR SERVICES The Court made the following: JUDGMENT r pending I IV w 1 APHC010056572022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARA\/AT\ (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO I.A.No.1 of 2022 in/and WRIT APPEAL NO: 192/2022 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of Writ Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, Honourable Smt Justice T.Rajani, passed in W.P.No. 9946 of 2019 dated 20-08-2019, for the following among the other Between; 1.NELLORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION NELLORE, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT REP. BY COMMISSIONER, } > ...APPELLANT AND 1.S K MUNWAR AHMED, RAMI NAGAR MANDAL, S.P.S.R. NELLORE. S/O.ABDUL KHADER, R/0.2-571. RAJA 5TH LINE, KOTHURU BIT-1, NELLORE RURAL 2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL FINANCE AND PLANNING (FW.P.C.-III) SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3.THE DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT{S): w 2 lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 873 days in filing the appeal against order in W.P. No. 9946 of 2019 dated 20.08.2019 and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 order in W.P.No. 9946 of 2019 dated 20.08.2019 pending disposal of the writ appeal and pass lANO: 1 OF 2023 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 grant leave for filing of counter in delay condonation petition for the better affidavit filed by the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES IV 2.GP FOR SERVICES I 3.NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY 3 The Court made the following Judgment; (per NJS,J) The present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/respondent No.3 against the order dated 20.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9946 of 2019. In the order under challenge, after considering the matter and following the decision in B.Srinivasulu Vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation^ the learned Single Judge had set aside the proceedings impugned in the writ petition and directed the respondents therein to pay the terminal benefits to the petitioner from 25.11.1993, from which date services of the petitioner has been regularized as per the G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994, instead of 02.11.2010 and also to pay the gratuity by considering the services of the petitioner from 01.04.1982. 2. The appellant/Municipal Corporation, challenging the said order, filed the present appeal along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 873 days in preferring the appeal. 3. The said application is opposed by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner by filing counter affidavit dated 25.02.2022. 4. Subsequently, the Corporation has filed a better affidavit dated 17.11.2022 elaborating the reasons for the delay in preferring the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the Corporation made submissions to impress upon the Court that the delay in filing the appeal was neither willful nor wanton, but due to administrative exigencies. Fie submits that the Corporation sought legal opinion of the Advocate on record, practicing in the Flon’ble Supreme Court of India and after receipt of the same, the appeal was preferred. Fie also submits that the transfer of the commissioners during the covid pandemic had contributed to the delay and that there was no negligence on the part of the officers concerned in either taking steps or pursuing the 6. Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015 decided on 17.08.2015 p 4 matter. He submits that unless the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned, the Corporation will be subjected to irreparable prejudice. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner vehemently opposed the application seeking condonation of delay. He submits that the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition on 20.08.2019 and even as per averments made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, the same was communicated on 25.09.2019 and appeal, if any, against the learned Single Judge’s order should have been filed at least within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and by seeking condonation of delay. He submits that the reasons stated, referring to COVID pandemic or for want of opinion of the Advocate on record, are not justifiable. He submits that from a reading of the material on record i.e., letter dated 24.08.2021 addressed by the Municipal Corporation to the 3^^ respondent herein, it is clear that the opinion of Advocate on record was sought about two years after the decision of the learned Single Judge and the opinion was rendered on 19.08.2021. He also submits that ample time was available to the Corporation prior to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandamic in the month of March, 2020 and no satisfactory reasons, much less explanation was forthcoming explaining the delay in between 25.09.2019 till the outbreak of COVID-19. He also submits that there are no merits in the appeal also. 7. Considered the submissions and perused the material on record. It may be appropriate to note that as many as three affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Corporation seeking to explain the delay in preferring the appeal. In one of the affidavits dated 11.10.2023, it is inter-alia stated that after pronouncement of the order, steps were taken to fix the pay of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner and to pay the consequential terminal benefits. However, it would appear that permission to file an appeal was sought by communication dated 10.03.2021 to the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration and after getting the opinion on 23.08.2021 from the Advocate on record, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the appeal was filed. In one of the 8. 5 A? affidavits, the delay between the receipt of order of the learned Single Judge till the outbreak of COVID-19 in March, 2020, as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner was not explained, much less, by giving satisfactory reasons. 9. It is not the case of the Corporation that prior to outbreak of covid-19, the opinion of Advocate on record. Supreme Court of India was sought. Therefore, the reason that due to outbreak of covid-2019 or due to non receipt of legal opinion from the Advocate on record. Supreme Court of India, delay occurred cannot be treated as just reasons for condoning the delay. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhar^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had inter-alia opined that the Court is required to consider what can be believed of a party that it was unable to file a matter within the period of limitation. It is appropriate to reproduce relevant portion of the order, which reads as follows:- 10. There is one another aspect of the matter which we must not ignore or overlook. Over a period of time, we have noticed that whenever there is a plea for condonation of delay be it at the instance of a private litigant or State the delay is sought to be explained right from the time, the limitation starts and if there is a delay of say 2 years or 3 years or 4 years till the end of the same. For example if the period of limitation is 90 days then the party seeking condonation has to explain why it was unable to institute the proceedings within that period of limitation. What events occurred after the 9f^ day till the last is of no consequence. The court is required to consider what came in the way of the party that it was unable to file it between the day and the 9(^^ day. It is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows the limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some even or circumstance arising before the limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No even or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause. There may be events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation which may further delay the filing of the appeal. But that the limitation has been 1. ^ 2024 Livelaw (SC) 953 6 allowed to expire without the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation. (See: Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and Another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1981 SC 733).” In H.Guruswamy & Others Vs. A.Krishnaiah^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter-alia held that the rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No Court should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time. In the said Judgment, it is also observed that it is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the Court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 11. In the light of the expression of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the conclusion that no satisfactory reasons are assigned for condoning the delay, I.A.No.1 of 2022 is dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal also stands dismissed. No Costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. 12. 2 2025 1 Supreme 246 / Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri A. S. C. Bose, SC for Municipal Corporations 2. One CC to Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, Advocate High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Two CCs to GP for Services-I, High Court of Andhra 5. Two CD Copies. [OPUC] [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Services-IV Pradesh [OUT] ssb HIGH COURT DATED;30/06/2025 JUDGMENT lA No.1 of 2022 in/and WA No. 192 OF 2022 01 AUG 2025 I ^ . Currant Section .^ DISMISSING THE lA No.1 of 2022 & W.A. WITHOUT COSTS