WA/1176/2024 of The Fishermen Cooperative Society Vs N. Anasuyamma on 31 December 2024

1. N. Anasuyamma, [W/o. late ][Ranga Rao, ][Aged ][about 66 ][years, Occ ][Housewife,]R/o. Janapahad, Nalgonda [District.]R/o. Janapahad, Nalgonda [District.]

2. N. Laxmi Narasimha [Rao, S/o. Late ][Sita ][Rama Rao, Aged about ][68 ][years,]Fi./o. Kothagudem, Khammam [District]Fi./o. Kothagudem, Khammam [District]

3. N. Ramchander [Rao, S/o. Late ][Sita ][Rama ][Rao, ][Aged ][about 60 ][years' ][R/o']Kothagudem, Khammam [District.]Kothagudem, Khammam [District.]

4. N. Karuna [Devi, ][W/o. ][late Subba ][Rao, ][Aged ][about 48 ][years, ][Fl/o' Balapur,]Hyderabad.Hyderabad.

5. N.V. Srinivasa Rao, [S/o. ][Sita Rama Rao, Aged ][about ][52 ][years, Occ]Govt. Service, [Rl/o- ][Kothagudem, ][Khammam District.]Govt. Service, [Rl/o- ][Kothagudem, ][Khammam District.]

6. N. lndira Kumar, [D/o. ][Sita ][Rama Rao, aged about 65 ][years, ][Fl/o']Shamshirgunj, [HYderabad.]Shamshirgunj, [HYderabad.]

...RESPONDENTS/WRIT [PETITIONERS]

7. The District Collector, [Khammam, Khammam District.]

8. The Assistant Director [of Fisheries' ][Khammam, Khammam District]

9. The Tahsildar. Enkuru Mandal, [Khammam ][District.]

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may oe preaseJ iocondone the delay or 529 days in filing the writ appeJl in the interest otiirsiG. [- ][.']

lA NO: 3 oF 2024

petition under section '151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit fited in suppo( of the petition, ine Higtr Court may t; ,"*; i"suspend the operation of !!e-o-rd_9r-s passed by the rearned singG;roiein w.i.No. i7390 of 2o13 dated 13-03-2023. pending disposar or tne Writ npiu"i iri'n"interest of [justice ]and equity Counsel for the Appellant:.SRt S.M.eURESHI, Sr. COUNSEL FOR SRt. MDABDUL MATEEN QURESHI

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI SHAIK KARIMULLA

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2&3: --

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.4 to 6: SRt PASAM MOHITH

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.7 to 9: Gp FOR FISHERIES

The Court made the foltowing: JUDGMENT

I

THE IIONOURABLE SRI [JUSTICE ][SUJOY PAUL]

&THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE [G. ][RADHA RANI]

I.A.No.1 of 2O24lnandWRIT APPEAL No. 1176 of2024

ORDER lper Hon'ble Dr.Justice [G.Radha ][Rrrni):]

This application is filed [by ][the ][petitioner - appellant ][- respondent]No.4 under section 5 [0f ][the Limitation ][Act, ][1963 ][to ][condone ][the ][delay]of 529 days in filing [the Writ ][Appr:al.]

2. Heard Sri S.M.Qureshi, [Iearned Senior ][Counsel ][for the petitioner]and Sri Pasham Motrith [ReddSr, ][learned counsel ][for the ][respondents ][4]and 6.

3. Learned Senior counsel [for ][rhe petitioner ][submitted ][that ][the]petitioner was the [prcsident ][of ][Fishermen ][co-operative ][Society ][at]Tutakalingannapeta [Village, ][Enkoor ][Mandal ][of ][Khammam ][District.]The respondents 1 to 6liled [Writ ][Petition ][No'17390 ][of ][2013]questioning the order [passed ]by [respondent No.7 ][i.e. ][the ][District]collector vide Fll842l20 [13 ][dated ][04.03.2013 granting ][lease ][in ][favor]of appellant - respondcnt [No'4 ][s socieq'' ][There ][was ][a ][delay ][of ][529]days in filing the [Writ ]'l-ipeal. [Tire ][petitioner ][was ][not ][aware ][of ][the]judgment passeci b-i' the ie arr-re d Single Judge [in ][W'P'No' ][1739O of]20i3. [{e r.r-as contir: [rr,, ][us]}' ][puisuir'g ][the nlatter ][u'ith ][respondents ][7]

SP,J&Dr.GRR,Juta-1176.-2024

and 8 for allotment of fishing [rights. ][After ][visiting continuously ][for]more than one [year, ]the [staff of ][respondent No.8 ][informed about ][the]order passed by the Single [Judge ][in ][W.P.No.|73SO ][of ][2013 ][on]13.03.2023. Thereafter, [the ][petitioner ][approached ][the ][counsel ][and]obtained the [papers ]of the Writ [Petition ][and ][approached ][the ][present]counsel for filing the Writ [Appeal, ][for which ][the ][delay ][occurred. ][The]delay was not deliberate and [wanton and ][prayed ][to ][condone ][the ][delay]of 529 days in frling the [Writ ][Appeal.]4. Learned counsel for the respondents 4 [and ][6 ][on the other ][hand]contended that the present application [for ][seeking ][condonation ][of]delay in filing the [present ]Writ [Appeal ][was ][Illed ][tvithout ][assigning any]reasons. The contention of [the ][learned Senior ][Counsel ][for ][the]petitioner - appellant that the [petitioner ][- ]appellant [u-as ][not ][aware ][of]the judgment dated 73.03.2023 in [W.P.No.17390 ][of ][2013 ][was ][not]correct, as the [petitioner ]- [appellant had ][come ][on ][record ][in ][pursuant]to filing of W.P.No.17390 of 2013 and [fiied ][thcir ][coLrnter ][and ][vacate]stay petition on 04.10.2013. After a [detaile ][d ][consideration, ][the]W.P.No. 17390 of 2013 was ordered in [favor ][of the respondents. ][The]petitioner - appellant was aware of the [judgment ][passcd ][bv ][this ][Court]in W.P.No.17390 of 2013. Inspite of being cognizatrt of order dated13.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.17390 of 2013, thc [petitioner ]miserablyfailed in filing the present appeal within the stipulated time period. In order to circumvent the [legal ][requirements, ][the ][petitioner ][falsely]stated that they [were ]not [aware ][of the ][said ][proceedings ][ald ][order]dated 13.03.2023 [passed ][in ][W.P.No. ][17390 ][of ][2Ol3- ][The ][petitioner]being aware of the impugned [order ][had ][not ][taken ][any ][steps ][to]challenge the same. [Hence, ][the ][petitioner ][was estopped ][from ][assailing]the order. An application [for ][condonation ][of ][delay ][ought ][not ][to ][be]filed in a casual and [cavalier ][manner. ][The ][afhdavit was ][devoid ][of any]reasons / facts [justifying ][the ][said ][delay. ][In ][the ][absence ][of ][the ][same,]the application was liable [to ][be ][dismissed ][at ][the threshold. ][The]application suffered [from ][delav ][and ][latches ][and ][grossly ][barred ][by]limitation and [prayed ]to [dismiss the ][same.]

5. Learned counsel for the [respondent ][also ][relied ][upon ][the]judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court [1n ]Post [Master ][General ][and]Others v. Living [Media ][India ][Limited ][and ][another ][I ][and ][in]Pathapati Subba Reddy [(Died) ][by ][LRs ][and ][others ][v. ][Special ][Deputy]Collector (Le;z it, Special [Leave ][Petition (Civil) ][No.31248 ][of ][2018]dated O8.O4.2024.

6. Perused the record-

'(2oL2) [3 ][scc ][563]

' [2023 ][SCC ][Online ][SC ][5 13]

SP,J&Dr.GRR,jlsa lL76 2O24

7. The application liled by the petitioner - respondent No.4 woulddisclose that the petitioner failed to give any specific dates as to whenhe came to know about the judgment passed by the learned SingleJudge in W.P.No.1739O of 2013. The reasons mentioned by himappear to be very vague. As per the contention ol the learned counselfor the respondents, the petitioner carne on record in W.P.No. 17390 of20 I 3 and filed their counter and also a vacate stal' petition on04.10.2013 and thereafter after a detailed consideration of the matter,the learned Single Judge disposed of the matter in W.P No. 17390 of2O l3 on 13.03.2023.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Dead) byLRs. And others v. Special Deputy Collector {LAf (cireci sr-rpraf , heldthat:

'17. It must always be borne in mind that u hiLc i.onsrruing'sulhcient cause'in deciding application under Sec.rion S of the Act,that on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribcri lbr filing anerppeal, substantive right in favour of a decree-holder. aci.rucs andrhis right ought not to be lightly disturbed. The ricr: rr',: - holclertreats the decree to be binding with the lapsc ol tuite .rnd mayproceed on such assurnption creating new rights.

18. This Court as far back in 1962 in the case oI Ramlal, MotilalAad Chhotelal vs, Rewa Coalfields Limited IAIR l()b2 SC 36llhas emphasized that even after suflicient causc itas t;et.n shou,nhas emphasized that even after suflicient causc itas t;et.n shou,nb,v a party for not filing an appeal within time. the saicl panr. is notentitled to the condonation of delay as excusing thr. clela-.. is thcdiscretionary jurisdiction vested with the court. Thc ,. rurr, clespitcentitled to the condonation of delay as excusing thr. clela-.. is thcdiscretionary jurisdiction vested with the court. Thc ,. rurr, clespitcestablishmr:nt of a 'sufFrcient eause, for varirrus rc:lsons, rnayrefuse to condone the delay depending upon th. bonir tlcles of thePa [rl-\ ]' -/:1^refuse to condone the delay depending upon th. bonir tlcles of thePa [rl-\ ]' -/:1^

_/

19. In Maqbul Ahmad arxd Ors. vs' [Onkar Pratap Narain ][Singh]and Others [AIR 1935 PC B5l, it had [been ][held ][that ][the ][court]cannot grant an exemption from limitation [on ][equitable]consideration or on the ground of hardship. [The ][court ][has ][time]and again repeated that when mandatory [provision is not complied]with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily [and ][convincingly]explained, it ought not to condone the [delay ][on ][sympathetic]grounds alone.

23. In Basawaraj and Another vs. [SPecial ][Land ][Acquisitioa]Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 8i], this [Court ][held ][that ][the discretion ][to]condone the delay has to [be exercised ][judiciously ][based ][upon ][the]facts and circumstarces of [each ][case. ][The expression 'sufficient]cause'as occurring in Section 5 [of ][the ][Limitation Act ][cannot ][be]liberally interpreted if negligence, [inaction ][or ][lack ][of ][bona Iide ][is]writ large. It was also observed [that ][even ][though ][limitation ][may]harshly affect rights of the [parties ][but ][it ][has ][to ][be ][applied ][with ][a1l]its rigour as prescribed under the [statlltc ][as ][the courts ][have ][no]choice but to apply the law as it [stands:rnd ][they ][have ][no ][power ][to]condone the delay on equitable [grounds.]

24. It would be benefrcial [to ][quote paragraph ][12 ][of ][the ][aforesaid]decision which clinches the issue ol [thc ][manner ][in ][which]equilibrium has to be maintained [bct$'een ][adopting ][liberal]approach and in implementing the [st.rt ][iltc ][as ][it ][stands. ]12 reads as under:

" 12. It is a settled legal [proposition ][tir.tt ][iau' of ][limiration ][may]harshly affect a particular [party ][but ][it ][hers ][to ][be ][applied ][with]all its rigour when the statutc [so prcscribes. Ttrc ][Court ][has ][no]power to extend the period of [limitarion ][on cquitable grounds.]"A result flowing [from ][a ][statuttln' ][prrtviston ][ls ][ncver ][an ][evil. ][A]Court has no power to ignore [that ][pro!'ision ][ro ][believe ][what ][it]considers a distress resulting [lllrn tts ][operation." ][The]statutory provision may cause [harclship ][or ][inconvenience to ][a]particular party but the court has no [cltoice ][but ][ro ][enforce ][it]giving full effect to the same. The legal [ntaxtm ][dura ][lex ][sed ][lex]which means "the law is hard but it is the [law", ][stands]attracted in such a situation. lt [has ][c'ortsistently been held]that, "inconvenience" is not a [decisivt' ][fzrctor ][to ][be considered]while interpreting a statute-"

25. This Court in the same [breath ][in ][thc ][same ][very decision ][vide]paragraph 15 went on to observe [as ][under:]

"15. The law on the [issue ][can ][be summarized ][to ][the ][effect]that where a case has [been ][prescnted ][in ][the court ][beyond]limitation, the applicant [has to ][expl:lin ][thc ][court ][as ][to ][what]

SP,J&Dr.cRR,Jwa-lL76'2024

yfl"il';;:jl';ilJ'XY rvr,ich.means an adequare and-i'i'ii ri-uIii..:i'n':rl:'l"I]'9 lil [to ][approach ]thc cou.ir9r wanr ;t';;;; "ril: " [etty ][is ][found ]to be nestigent, orcircumstanc(.s lt^ in tt,. ri.l unadiligently .. ..-ri".i ,,r ,r,. -?t [his ][part ]have nor " acredi:11t', [ot ][found ][to ]ground io .onaoril"i,"" [tltlctrve-' there carrnot ]be a jr.rstifiedtt. .onaor,i;;';i;".#: Sown [bv ][this ]courr in regard rocause ro prevent . riti*Xl-l? case there was no suffit'ienr_ :r*x jli s*i:. _-xt-ffl,]:ff i":[:":Hl, :+ :*ivrorarron ,[ thc s ta tu t o.a-::I". [to ][passing ]an orde, iirshowing ,,,,'; ;;";;".Y. provrsrons and it tantamounrs r()- [I to ][the ][legislature." ]supptrcd) (emphasis

26. On a harmonioLrs co

coaloresaid. ancl rlre 1r* ,r1'-d^lttfi:n rd down [of the provisions ]of the lau.. asby this Court, it is evidenr thar:

thar:(i) Lau. of limrtation i:rather should rhan be an th,' t.nd to r;g1.,1 li;-}:td, bv up-on- forfeiting public trre policy rigtrt thar ; ;";";,thcret,l|ill'""

(ii) A right or rhe rer,,,,r"-a- ii r,, ", ;J exrst allcr a fixed period .,Hr,l:i$, "h"" of time;l:,J.:;..;:,:::.$ l;

(iii) The provisrons of ttai',,..nrrl,',""r,';";""!;':: to be construcct"'Titation [Act ][have ]sense w.hereas Scction sti.,l- ' [has ]? [to ][has ][be ]construed liberally;[to ][be ][construed ]l" . "t.i.*

(iv) In orcicr to advanc

approach, orcicr to advanc-1u.t,."-o.ien1: to advancadvancsubstantia-l justice, though ii beralJustrce ma' be kept ;n ,t9 'PPto"ch [or ][cause ]"r ",]u=,,,n,,,,iffi :; ni;;,x ,:n:. *,:":::1, :;* [;H,', ][# ][:1,Hl"ff ]l"l, i: H:: l;:, : T,: ::'",..'i :: [exerci se ][discretion ]to condon e r h.oI pou'q;- ir but thar exerr.iscait,..i,ll]',.I1o-h'explained, "'en [if ][s,rifi,',:.;,".,,;":''* ]' [T ]es.tablished [."?lYtt ][al1d ][may ][not ][be ][exercise4]1s. [ulhcrc ,t-,,".. ][ir ]inJ.a", for various laclors suchduc diligcnr.e: ["'-'-lnate ][delay, ]negligence and want ol

(vi) Merel.1.does not me s()m,- p(.rsons a n r h a r [[r,. ][* ]][[* ]]obtained r obtained r", [[r,. ][* ]][[* ]]li"r""lft "L-",r$..j.,,fi ,31 #ii,il. I

if the court is not satisfred with the cause shown for the delayin filing the appeal;

(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered incondoning the delay; andcondoning the delay; and

(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on theparameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoningthe delay for the reason that the conditions have beenimposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutoryprovision."provision."

9Considering the principles reiterated by the Hon'ble ApexCourtu'hile considering the applications filed for condonation of delay,ASthe petitioner failed to file within the stipulated time period and failedto give any reasons for llling the appeal vvith dela_v and the reasonsgiven by him that he was not aware of the judgment dated 13.O3,2O23in W.P.No.1739O of 2013 was very vague and un substantiate, it isthe petitioner failed to file within the stipulated time period and failedto give any reasons for llling the appeal vvith dela_v and the reasonsgiven by him that he was not aware of the judgment dated 13.O3,2O23in W.P.No.1739O of 2013 was very vague and un substantiate, it isconsidered fit to dismiss the application.

lO. In the result, I.A.No.1 of 2024 is dismissed. Consequently,W.A.No. 1176 of 2024 is also dismissed No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal if ;inr , shall stand closed.

SD/. [I. ][N][AGALAKSHMI]DEPREGISTDEPREGIST/TTRUE [COPY//]SION [OFFTCER]

/TTRUE S12345llffiF*itr w

'"

To,

5KKSBSRw

HIGH COURT

DATED:31 11:212024

JUDGMENT|.A.NO.1 0F 2024IN/AND

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1126 OF 2024

,. S. Il\.f€('vIrii-J19 rtB [zffi ]i;,l,i,/^*r)/\ls:-":9', DISMISSING THE I.A. & WRIT APPEALWITHOUT COSTS

8*t(4Ykdft,