Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 10378
APHC010010252024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3572]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 30/2024
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to issue an appropriate Direction or Order to Set aside the Order dt.4.1.2023 and consequential orders passed in I.A.No.l of 2023 dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Honble High court of A.P in WP (AT) No.636/2021 and to pass
Between:
1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ESTTII DEPARTMENT 5TH BLOCK SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. T HE ENGINEERINCHIEF R W S ANDS DEPARTMENT, STATE OF AP VASUDHA SHELTER CBLOCK, GOLLAPUDI POST VIJAYAWADA RURAL KRISHNA DISTRICT.
3. T HE CHIEF ENGINEER ADMIN, 3. R W S AND5 STATE OF AP VASUDHA SHELTER CBLOCK GOLLAPUDI POST VIJAYAWADA RURAL KRISHNA DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. S RI P V NAGA SAI, S/o. P.V. Rama Krishna Rao Aged 43 years, Occ- Asst. Executive Engineer, O/o. Dy.Executive Engineer, PR Engg. Dept. PIU Sub-Division, Mowa, Krishna District ...RESPONDENT
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 dispense with the certified copy of the final order dated 04.01.2023, passed in W.P (AT).No.636 of 2021 and (Review I.A) Order dated 14.12.2023 passed in I.A.No.l of 2023 in W.P(AT) No.636 of 2021 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and to pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2024
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 of337days in filing the writ appeal and to pass
IA NO: 3 OF 2024
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 operation of the final orders dated04.01.2023 passed in W.P.(AT).No.636 of 2021 and to pass
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. .
2. GP FOR SERVICES IV
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PARTY IN PERSON
The Court made the following:
____________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
_____________________
BALAJI MEDAMALLI,J
Date :11.03.2026.
RPD.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
(DISPOSED OF)
WRIT APPEAL NO: 30 of 2024
Date: 11.03.2026
RPD.
JUDGMENT:-
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
Heard Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for the writ appellants and the respondent-Sri P.V.Naga Sai (writ petitioner) appearing in person.
The present Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 04.01.2023 passed in W.P.(AT).No.636 of 2021, and the order dated 14.12.2023 passed in Review I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.(AT).No.636 of 2021 by the learned Single Judge.
W.P.(AT).No.636 of 2021 by the writ petitioner/respondent in writ appeal was allowed and Review I.A.No.1 of 2023 filed by the State and its authorities/ the writ appellants, was dismissed.
I.A.No.1 of 2024
This application has been filed to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the final order dated 04.01.2013 passed in W.P.(AT).No.636 of 2021 and the order dated 14.12.2013 passed in Review I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.(AT).No.636 of 2021.
Considering the cause shown in the affidavit as also submissions advanced, filing the certified copies as aforesaid, is dispensed with.
I.A.No.2 of 2024
The Writ Appeal was filed on 06.01.2024 along with I.A.No.2 of 2024 seeking condonation of delay of 337 days.
Learned counsel for the writ appellants submits that the final order in the writ petition was communicated to the Government on 11.04.2023 and immediately, a decision was taken to file review application. However, due to administrative reasons, the review application could be filed on 28.06.2023, which was heard on 8.12.2023 and was reserved for orders, which was passed on 14.12.2023. Consequently, there is a delay in filing the writ appeal, which is neither deliberate nor willful. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the cause contained in the affidavit is a sufficient cause.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent/writ petitioner contending that the cause shown is not sufficient. Delay has not been explained on a day-to-day basis. Filing and pendency of review petition is not a tenable ground to condone the delay. The delay cannot be condoned.
The respondent submits that the Writ Appeal is not maintainable after the rejection of Review I.A.No.1 of 2023. He further submits that the order in review has not been challenged. So, the same became final. In case of any grievance, the writ appellants should have filed appeal against the order in review.
The writ petition was allowed on 04.01.2023. Review petition was filed. It was dismissed on 14.12.2023. The writ appeal was filed on 06.01.2024. The writ appellants were pursuing the remedy of review against the order in the writ petition. After the review came to be dismissed, the Writ Appeal was filed challenging both the orders passed in the writ petition and in the review petition. The writ appeal has been filed within a reasonable period of 30 days from the order in reivew under challenge in the writ appeal.
We are of the view that there is no delay in filing writ appeal from the date of the order in review and so far as, the order in writ petition is concerned, the writ appellants were pursuing the remedy of review, open to them in law. The delay if any against the order in writ petition is for the sufficient cause, which deserves to be condoned.
The contention of the respondent is not correct. It has been correctly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that in the writ appeal, the review order is also under challenge.
In State of M.P. Vs. Ram Kumar Chowdary cited by the respondent, there was delay of more than five years and the explanation furnished by the State was not found to be sufficient. It was observed that the „sufficient cause‟ cannot be liberally, interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides is attributed to the party. In the present case, we are of the view that after the order in the review application on 14.12.2023, the writ appeal was filed on 06.01.2024 and consequently, there is no negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides, that can be attr
