WA/1142/2025 of SRI YOGA BHOGESWAR SWAMY TEMPLE Vs BINGI CHINNA BALA ANKANNA on 16 June 2026

1. SRI YOGA BHOG MADANAPALLI MAN EXECUTIVE OFFICER

1. BINGI CHINNA BAL ABOUT 45 YEARS, 4-110, NEAR SHIVAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT

2. THE STATE OF AN SECRETARY, EN VELAGAPUDI, GUNT

3. THE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT, VIJA

4. THE REGIONAL JO DEPARTMENT, TIRU

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) , THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT LE THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURY I.A. No.1 OF 2025 IN / AND T APPEAL NO: 1142 of 2025 GESWAR SWAMY TEMPLE, CHIP NDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, REP R. ...AP AND LA ANKANNA, S/o. BINGI ANKANN OCC JUNIOR ASSISTANT CLERK, R LAYAM SHIVA NAGAR,MADANAPAL T. NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS P DOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECR TUR DISTRICT. NER OF ENDOWMENTS, ENDO AYAWADA. INT COMMISSIONER, MZ- II, ENDO UPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

YA PPILI (V), P. BY ITS PPELLANT NA, AGED R/O. D.NO. LE TOWN PRINCIPAL RETARIAT, OWMENTS OWMENTS

5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S): CORAM : THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

&

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

DATE : 17.06.2026. Present : Mr.P.Vishnu Teja, Spl. Govt. Pleader for appellant.

Mr.S.Bhargav, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Orders Reserved on : 08.04.2026 Orders Pronounced on : 17.06.2026 Orders Uploaded on

: 18.06.2026

The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)

1. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge dated 29.01.2024 in Writ Petition No.1996 of 2013, present intra-Court Appeal has been preferred with a delay of 571 of days.

2. The 1st respondent / writ petitioner belongs to Boya Caste (SC) and completed his graduation in B.Sc., in the year 2000. As per instructions of Commissioner of Endowments dated 12.07.2002, he was appointed as clerk on contract basis on a consolidated pay of Rs.1,500/- per month, on 13.07.2002. His services were extended from time to time. Pursuant to proceedings of Regional Joint Commissioner dated 15.06.2007, appellant / Temple regularized his services as Junior Assistant. Thereafter, he passed

1) Endowment Departmental Test Part-II (Rules) in January, 2006,

2) Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part I (with books) in November 2008, 3) Accounts Test for Executive officers in October, 2008, 4) Civil Judicial Test Part-I (with books) in August, 2009, 5) Indian Evidence Act Test (with books) in May, 2010, 6) Civil Judicial test Part-II (with books) in May, 2010 and Civil Judicial Test Paper-I (without books) in May, 2010.

3. More than five years after regularization of services, Commissioner of Endowments issued Proceedings dated 14.11.2012 cancelling regularization order dated 15.06.2007 and same were challenged in the writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Commissioner of Endowments, facts with regard to petitioner’s appointment, qualifications were not denied.

Cancellation Order was however sought to be defended on the premise that regulations proceedings were issued during ban period and the same are not valid.

4. Learned Single Judge relied on the judgment dated 27.02.2018 in W.P.Nos.8399 and 8403 of 2010 wherein, withdrawal of regularization orders, on the ground that the same were issued during ban period were interfered with. Learned Single Judge in the order against which above appeal has been preferred, opined that facts in the present case are similar to facts in writ petitions referred to above and rejected contention of the State that authorities are entitled to cancel order of regularization as service of writ petitioner was regularized during ban period.

5. Mr.Vishnu Teja, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of appellant-Temple made submissions touching upon merits of the case. In so far as delay of 571 days in preferring appeal, he made submissions to impress upon the Court that the same is neither willful nor wanton, but due to administrative reasons. Referring to Para No.8 of affidavit filed in support of application seeking condonation of delay, he pleads that after receipt of impugned order which was dispatched by Registry of High Court on 26.02.2024, necessary instructions were sought from higher authorities with regard to filing of writ appeal; that in view of announcing of General Elections; thereafter change in the administration as also Standing Counsels, appeal could not be filed, within statutory period. Due to said reasons, delay of 571 days in filing writ appeal occurred. He submits that appellant has fair chances of success in appeal and unless delay of 571 days is condoned, the petitioner / appellant will suffer great prejudice, hardship and irreparable loss.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent / writ petitioner submits that delay in filing appeal was not supported by any cogent reasons, that application seeking to condone delay as well as appeal are liable to be dismissed for various reasons set out in counter-affidavit. He had also drawn the attention of this Court to relevant material filed along with counter-affidavit and urges for dismissal of the delay petition.

7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the record.

8. At the outset, it may be pertinent to note that present appellant / Temple – 5th respondent in writ petition remained un-represented. Commissioner of Endowments, whose order was declared illegal by the learned Single Judge, did not choose to file appeal. Be that as it may.

9. As noted earlier, appeal is preferred with a delay of 571 days. Therefore, whether petitioner / appellant was able to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay in presenting appeal, has to be examined.

10. Learned Single Judge allowed writ petition on 29.01.2024. Material on record would go to show that order was dispatched by Registry of High Court on 15.02.2024. Therefore, averment in the affidavit filed in support of delay petition that copy of order was dispatched on 26.02.2024 is contrary to record. No details are set out in the affidavit as to date on which copy of order was received by petitioner / appellant-Temple, much less date on which, instructions were sought for filing of writ appeal. However, as seen from the material filed along with counter-affidavit to the condone delay petition, the Commissioner, Endowments through proceedings in R.C.No. C1/13027(48)/13/2023 dated 21.03.2024 issued specific instructions to file writ appeal against orders dated 29.01.2024 in W.P.No.1996 of 2013 by engaging Special Government Pleader attached to office of the learned Advocate General. A copy of said proceedings was marked to Executive Officer of petitioner / appellant-temple. No reply affidavit is filed denying said proceedings, let alone receipt of the same. Petitioner / appellant has not filed any material to substantiate the stand that due to General Elections, steps could not have been taken for filing writ appeal, pursuant to said proceedings dated 21.03.2024. It was not even the case that concerned officer was attending elections duties, either. There is no dispute that General Elections were concluded, in so far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, in May/June, 2024. Nothing prevented the concerned officer to file writ appeal at least thereafter. However, present appeal was filed on 20.09.2025. Be that as it may.

11. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had inter-alia opined that the Court is required to consider what came in the way of the party that it was unable to file a matter within the period of limitation. It is appropriate to reproduce relevant portion of the order, which reads as follows:- “7. There is one another aspect of the matter which we must not ignore or overlook. Over a period of time, we have noticed that whenever there is a plea for condonation of delay be it at the instance of a private litigant or State the delay is sought to be explained right from the time, the limitation starts and if there is a delay of say 2 years or 3 years or 4 years till the end of the same. For example if the period of limitation is 90 days then the party seeking condonation has to explain why it was unable to institute the proceedings within that period of limitation. What events occurred after the 91st day till the last is of no consequence. The court is required to consider what came in the way of the party that it was unable to file it between the 1st day and the 90th day. It is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows the limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some even or circumstance arising before the limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No even or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause. There may be events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation which may further delay the filing of the appeal. But that the limitation has been allowed to expire without the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation. (See: Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and Another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1981 SC 733).”

12. In the present case, petitioner / appellant failed to show any reason much less a sufficient cause due to which appeal could not be filed within limitation period of 30 days. The petitioner / appellant allowed limitation to expire. Therefore, application in question is liable to be rejected.

1 2024 Livelaw (SC) 953

13. In the light of above stated factual and legal position, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 571 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the I.A., is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal itself stands dismissed. No costs.

Pending Miscellaneous Applications in Writ Appeal, if any, are dismissed accordingly. (LISA GILL)

(NINALA JAYASURYA) CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Date: 17.06.2026 BLV

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE LISA GILL THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.A.No: 1142 OF 2026 Date: 17.06.2026 BLV