APHC010097792026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 5576/2026 Between: 1. PEDABALIYARA SIMHUNI SRINIVAS, S/O. LATE SANYASI RAJU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. HOUSE NO. 1-430, MAKKUVA ROAD, SALUR, SALUR MANDAL, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522237. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT- 535003. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, SALUR, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT-535591. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, , ETCHERLA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT- 532410. 5. SINGAMREDDY JAYASIMHA, S/O. NOT KNOWN. OFFICE BEARER ADIVIASI VIKAS PARISHAD, KOTHAVALASA SALUR MANDAL, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT- 535183. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particuiariy one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the complaint proceedings in Lr. No Rc.771/2015,SA,Dt. 01-03-2016 addressed by the Respondent No.3, The Tahsildar Salur, Parvathipuram Manyam District, to the Sub-Inspector Poiice Salur is one without jurisdiction, opposed to law, against to the provisions of the A.P. SC, ST, BC, Regulations Community Certificates Act. 16 of 93, rule 15 (B) of GOMS 58, Dt.12-05- 1997 and Judgments of Honble High Court of A.P. ordered in W.P. 1782 / 1983 and W.A. 9/86 and as arbitrary and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 complaint proceedings Lr. No Rc.771/2015,SA,Dt. 01-03-2016 addressed by the 3rd Respondent i.e., The Tahsildar Salur, Parvathipuram Manyam District addressed to the Police Officials pending disposal of the Writ petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GORLE GOPALAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.5576 of 2026 ORDER : The present writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings in Lr.No.771/2015, SA dated 01.03.2016 issued by Respondent No.3 i.e. Tahsildar, Salur, Parvathipuram Manyam District as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order was issued on the ground that the sons of the Petitioner had fraudulently obtained ST caste certificate and medical seats by cheating the Government and necessary criminal action is directed to be issued. 3. It is to be noted that after considering the preliminary documents, the impugned order came to be passed. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, not a single syllable explains the delay of 10 years in filing with writ petition. In a similar fact scenario, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tridip Kumar Dingal and others v. State of West Bengal1 at paragraph 57 held as under: 1 (2009) 1 SCC 768 4 57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction. The underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime (vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006 : (1964) 6 SCR 261] , Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court [AIR 1967 SC 1450] and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India[(1992) 3 SCC 136 : (1992) 21 ATC 675 : (1992) 2 SCR 969] ). This principle applies even in case of an infringement of fundamental right (vide Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110] , Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185] and Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India [(1970) 1 SCC 84] ). 4. Similar is the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhandra Koley and others2. 5. In view of unexplained delay, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this point of time and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 2 (2024) 15 SCC 215 5 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 26.02.2026 KLP