2024-07-23
Subject:
JUDGMEN T
IA No. 843/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONA L DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURE S IA No. 842/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES )
SLP(C) No. 7346/2024 (XII-A )
(IA No. 20399/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILIN G IA No. 20400/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNE D
JUDGMEN T
IA No. 20401/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONA L DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES )
SLP(C) No. 3568-3570/2019 (XII-A )
(IA No. 7136/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNE D SLP(C) No. 16552/2019 (XII-A )
ITEM 3 3 PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 19481/202 1 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-06-202 1 in WP No. 9705/2021 passed by the High Court Of Andhra Pradesh A t Amravati )
THE DHARMAVARAM MUNICIPALITY & ORS. PETITIONER(S )
VERSU S B PEDDA NAGANNA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S )
( IA No. 12851/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING )
Date : 23-07-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today .
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHL I HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHT A ITEM 1 3 For Petitioner(s) Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv .
Ms. Devina Sehgal, AO R Ms. Soumya Gupta, Adv .
Mr. G. N. Reddy, AO R Mr. Jonnala Veera Raghava, Adv .
Mr. Neelanjana Rao M., Adv .
Mrs. T. Nagini Vijaya Lakshmi, Adv .
Mr. Satyakam Sharma, Adv .
Mr. Ashok Anand, AO R Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, AO R M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, AO R Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AO R Ms. Shireesh Tyagi, Adv .
Ms. Tayade Pranali Govardhan, Adv .
Mr. Aniket Singh, Adv .
Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AO R Mr. N. Rajaraman, AO R Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AO R Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AO R Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv .
Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv .
Mr. Ritik Arora, Adv .
Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv .
Mr. Murshlin Ansari, Adv .
Mr. Sateesh H. Galla, Adv .
For Respondent(s) Mr. M.S. Vishnu Sankar, Adv .
Mr. David Rao, Adv .
Ms. Athira G Nair, Adv .
Ms. Viddusshi, Adv .
Mr. Aditya Santosh, Adv .
Ms. Anjali Singh, Adv .
Ms. Isha Singh, Adv .
M/s. Lawfic, AO R Mr. Mehmood Umar Faruqui, AO R Ms. Surabhi Guleria, AO R Mr. L. Narasimha Reddy, Sr. Adv .
Ch. Leela Sarveswar, Adv .
Mr. R. Raghavender Reddy, Adv .
Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv .
Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv .
Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AO R Mr. Sumanth Nookala, AO R Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AO R Mr. Krishan Pal Mavi, AO R Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv .
Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AO R Mr. Samarth Luthra, Adv .
Mr. Keshav Singh, Adv .
Mr. Roy Abraham, Adv .
Ms. Reena Roy, Adv .
Mr. Adithya Koshy Roy, Adv .
Mr. Yaduinder Lal, Adv .
Mr. Shrey Kumar, Adv . Mr. Himinder Lal, AO R ITEM 1 9 For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AO R Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AO R Mr. G. N. Reddy, AO R Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AO R Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AO R Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv .
Mr. Gautam Bhatia, Adv .
Mr. Samarth Luthra, Adv .
Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv .
Mr. Keshav Singh, Adv . Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AO R Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv .
Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv .
Mr. Ritik Arora, Adv .
Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv .
Mr. Murshlin Ansari, Adv .
Mr. Sateesh H. Galla, Adv .
For Respondent(s) Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, AO R Mrs. K.Radha, Adv .
Mr. K.Maruthi Rao, Adv .
Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AO R Mr. M Srinivas R Rao, Adv . Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P, AO R Mr. Saswat Adhyapak, Adv .
Mr. Sarath S Janardanan, Adv . Mr. Joydip Bhattacharya, Adv .
Mr. L. Narasimha Reddy,, Sr. Adv .
Ch. Leela Sarveswar, Adv .
Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv .
Mr. P. Raghavender Reddy, Adv .
Mr. R. Ravi, Adv .
Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv .
Mr. Raghavender Reddy, Adv .
Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AO R Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AO R Mr. S. Lakshma Reddy, Sr. Adv .
Mr. Manoj C. Mishra, AO R Mr. Parnam Prabhakar, Adv .
Mr. Tarun Chauhan, Adv .
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, AO R Mr. Chandra Mohan, Adv .
Mr. Krishna, Adv .
Ms. N. Annapoorani, AO R Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham,Adv .
Mr. Sushil, Adv .
Mr. Sandeep Singh, AO R Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AO R Mr. Sadineni Ravi Kumar, AO R Ms. Isha, Adv .
Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AO R Ms. Y. Vismai Rao, Adv .
Mr. Y. Ramesh, Adv .
Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv .
Mr. Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, Sr. Adv .
Mr. Chandramohan Anisetty, Adv .
Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, AO R Mr. Sunny Kumar, Adv .
Mr. Prateek Raushan, Adv . Mr. Venkata Krishna, Adv .
Mr. Kesana Vishnu Vardhan Goud, Adv .
Mr. D. Venkatesh, Adv .
Mr. R. Sathish, AO R Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AO R Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv .
Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv .
Mr. Ritik Arora, Adv .
Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv .
Mr. Bomminini Vivekananda, Adv .
Ms. Garima Bajaj, AO R Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv .
Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AO R Mr. Keshav Singh, Adv .
Mr. Samarth Luthra, Adv .
Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv .
Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AO R ITEM 3 3 For Petitioner(s) Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AO R For Respondent(s) Mr. L. Narasimha Reddy, Sr. Adv .
Mr. Leela Sarveswar, Adv .
Mr. V. Senthil Kumar, Adv .
Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv .
Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv . Mr. Devansh Tyagi, Adv .
Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AO R UPON hearing the counsel the court made the followin g
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Applications for substitution and setting aside abatement, condonation of delay in setting aside abatement and deletion, if any, are allowed. Cause title be amended accordingly.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and have also considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents.
4. We have been informed that G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 22nd April, 1994 and the G.O. Ms. issued subsequent to the impugned judgment and orders, were issued for the purpose of regularization.
5. We have perused the impugned judgments as well as contents of the G.O.Ms. No.212 dated 22nd April, 1994, 533 dated 29th November, 2011, 170 dated 19th March, 2018 and 171 dated 19th March, 2018, 60 and 61 dated 08th October, 2021 and have also perused the judgments cited before us including the decision in the case of “A. Manjula Bhashini and Others vs. Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited and Another”1; District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors2 and B. Srinivasulu S/o. Padmanbaiah Vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner, Nellore Dist., Andhra Pradesh3 and lastly, the order dated 12th July, 2024 passed by this Court in SLP (Civil) No.14973 of 2024, “Government Of Andhra Pradesh (now Govt. Of Telangana) and Ors. vs. G. Jagannadham and Ors.” and are of the firm view that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh as also the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amravati.
6. We are further of the opinion that contrary to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the view taken in the impugned judgment and orders is in line with the decision of this Court in the case of A. Manjula Bhashini and Others (supra).
7. The Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal are accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.
8. The petitioners-State Governments are granted time upto 31st December, 2024 to implement the impugned judgment and orders.
1 2009 (8) SCC 431 2 2009(8) SCC 480 3 2021(13) SCC 460 (Nand Kishor) (Geeta Ahuja )
Court Master (NSH) Assistant Registrar-cum-P S
Family Judge Exposes Weaponized Litigation in Custody Dispute
14 Feb 2026
Centre Notifies Two High Court Chief Justice Appointments
16 Feb 2026
Deep Chandra Joshi Appointed Acting NCLT President
16 Feb 2026
Debunking the Myth That Indians Lack Privacy Concepts
16 Feb 2026
Whose View Is It Anyway? Juniors Uncredited
16 Feb 2026
Private Property Disputes Not Human Rights Violations; HRC Lacks Jurisdiction Under PHRA: Gujarat HC
16 Feb 2026
Supreme Court Rejects Stay on RTI Data Amendments
16 Feb 2026
DIFC Court: Strong Reasons Required to Block Arbitration
17 Feb 2026
Bar Leaders Oppose High Courts Saturday Sittings
17 Feb 2026
Huge delay of 1,633 days in filing Special Leave Petition cannot be condoned.
Government litigation must adhere to the same standards for condonation of delay as private parties, with negligence and casual inaction being inadequate justifications.
The law of limitation binds all, including government agencies, and condonation of delay is an exception which should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments.
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal based on the previous setting aside of the impugned order.
Period of limitation – Condonation of delay – No event or circumstance arising after expiry of limitation can constitute sufficient cause – Expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be liberally interpret....
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.