APHC010969542018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No.46834/2018 Between: 1. S.V.V. PRASAD, S/O. S. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, AVH, CHINTHOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, NATIVE OF H.No.8-5-30, SEELAMVARI STREET, BAPATLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522101, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE BAPATLA MUNICIPALITY, BAPATLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 to issue a Writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents not considered the representation made by the petitioners mother Dt. 07.08.2001 in accordance with the law is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the representation made the petitioners mother Dt. 07.08.2001 and an enquiry report sent to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent by maintain the record the original 2 date of birth is 15.08.1966 of S.V.V. Prasad in the municipal records of the 2nd respondent. IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 direct the 1st respondent by verifying the office records and sent the report to the 2nd respondent as early as possible in pursuance of the representation made by the petitioners mother Dt. 07.08.2001, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATA RAGHU MANNEPALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following 3 ORDER: The sole relief sought by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to consider and pass orders on the representation, dated 07.08.2001, allegedly submitted by the mother of the petitioner. 2. Admittedly, the present Writ Petition was filed in the year 2018, which is after a delay of 17 years from the date of submission of the aforesaid representation. 3. That while there is no strict limitation period for filing a Writ Petition, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and cannot be invoked to assist a party who is indulgent, negligent and has slept over his rights for nearly two decades, as such delay disturbs the right that might have accrued to 3rd party in the intervening period. Given the inordinate and unexplained delay of 17 years, the Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary power to grant any relief to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of 17 years without providing any satisfactory explanation or reasonable cause for such negligence, amounting to gross laches. 5. Accordingly, with the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 4 Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date:05.03.2026 DSH