Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 20.09.2024 in WP No. 19305 of 2006

IA 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 to condone the delay of 284 days in filing the writ appeal against the orders dated 13-09-2024 in WP No. 19305 of 2006

IA 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 SUSPEND the operation of the order dated 20.09.2024 in W.P.No.19305 of 2006

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 to permit the appellants/petitioners to impaled proposed respondent A.M.A.L. College, Anakapalle as respondent No.2 in Writ Appeal No. 921 of 2025 and to pass

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K SARVA BHOUMA RAO

2. CHILAMKURTHI SATYA DEV NAIDU

The Court made the following Judgment:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Subhendu Samanta)

The instant Writ Appeal is preferred against the order dated 13.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.19305 of 2006. I.A.No.1 of 2025 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 284 days in filing this writ appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It appears from the accompanying affidavit filed by the appellant in I.A.No.1 of 2025 that the reason for delay was demonstrated in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit, which read as follows:

“4. It is respectfully submitted that the order in W.P.No.19305 of 2006 was passed on 13.09.2024 and the same was received by the Department on 13.11.2024. After receipt of the order, the Government Pleader for Higher Education has been sought opinion on the orders dated: 13.09.2024. In reply, vide letter dated: 09.04.2025 rendered his opinion to file Writ Appeal against the orders of the Learned Single Judge dated: 13.09.2024 in W.P.No.19305 of 2006. Further summer vacation commenced from 10.05.2025 to 15.06.2025. Hence the delay occurred. However, the same could not be filed for want of delay petition. Accordingly delay petition is prepared and submitted to the Hon’ble Court. Hence, delay of 284 days had occurred in filing the appeal. I submit that the delay that has occurred in filing the above appeal is only due to administrative reasons and not intentional or willful.”

It is surprising to note that though the order under challenge was passed on 13.09.2024 in the presence of learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, the appellant has stated in the application that the department has received the order on 13.11.2024.

Due to bureaucratic lethargy, i.e., moving file to one department to another for getting instructions and opinion for filing the appeal, 284 days have already been elapsed.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Others, 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1254 has specifically deprecated the practice of different Governments and it’s entities for causing delay of not filing appeal in due time. The learned Apex Court has also been clarified Section 5 of Limitation Act in its true perspective. It has been directed that only the delay in filing appeal after the period of limitation is not only required to be explained but it has to be explained why the appeal was not filed within the statutory period of limitation. The observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 154 to 158 of the Shivamma’s case is set out as follows:

“110. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, also does not speak that the discretion conferred to the courts is limited only for determining if sufficient cause exists or not, and where it has in its discretion decided that such “sufficient cause” existed, it has to then mandatorily c