WRIT PETITION 35477 of 2013 on 22 September 2004

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

I.A.No.1 of 2022 inWRIT APPEAL No.1022 OF 2022

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Dr. V.R.K.Krupa Sagar)

In its endeavour to file a writ appeal, the Telangana State Pollution Control Board failed to meet the time lines of limitation and therefore has come up with this petition praying to condone the delay of 115 days in filing the writ appeal.

02. In response, Respondent Nos.3, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35 and 37 filed a common counter with an affidavit sworn by respondent No.3 traversing the facts alleged and mentioning the facts on its behalf and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

03. Smt B.Vasantha Lakshmi, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted their respective arguments on facts and the principles of law.

04. The point that falls for consideration before us is:

Whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 115 days in presenting the writ appeal?

05. POINT:-

Facts requisite for the present purpose need be noticed. Certain categories of employees being appointed on direct contract basis in the year 2001 were regularized by the employer during the year 2005. To them service benefits were extended from the date of their joining on regular basis. Their request for regularization from the date of their initial appointment was rejected by the employer during the year 2012. Assailing the same, the employees filed W.P.No.35477 of 2013 before this Court as against the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board and the Telangana State Pollution Control Board. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by Orders dated 15-06-2022, allowed the writ petition and granted the relief sought for.

06. The Telangana State Pollution Control Board alone is agitated on the premise that the very regularization was made

with a condition that the employees were not eligible for any service benefits for the contract period served earlier and that as per G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 26-02-2016 regularization shall be from the date of orders of regularization and appointment to the category and not otherwise and that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.653 of Finance Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 22.09.2004 the employees are not eligible to the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980. It is in that view of the matter the writ appeal is preferred and along with it the present petition to condone 115 days delay is filed. The Member Secretary of the Board swore the affidavit in support of the petition explaining the cause of delay at Paragraph No.4 which is extracted here:

“ It is submitted that there is a delay of 115 days in preferring the above appeal and the same has been occurred because of the process of Administrative Sanction by the higher authorities of the appellant Board. It is submitted that the impugned Order was passed by this Hon’ble Court on 15.06.2022, and copy application was filed on 15.06.2022 and the same was made ready on 23.06.2022. Though the copy of the order was ready on 23.06.2022 the above appeal was not filed within the limitation period as such there is delay of 175 days in filing the above Writ Appeal. The delay in filing the above appeal is neither willful nor wanton and if the delay is not condoned, the Appellant Board shall face serious hardships. It is submitted that initially the

counterpart ie., A.P. Pollution Control Board was consulted with regard to taking further course of action for preferring Writ Appeal against the orders of the learned single Judge and also consulting the Advocate at Vijayawada a delay of 115 days occurred in the said process in preferring the above appeal. The delay is neither willful nor wonton.”

07. The writ petitioners being respondents to the present petition raised their protest essentially on the ground mentioned at Para 5 of the counter affidavit which is extracted here:

“ It is submitted that, the writ appeal had been filed with an inexplicable delay of 179 days by the Board and there is no whisper as to how the delay of 179 days had been occurred in filing the writ appeal. A paragraph No.4 in the affidavit filed in support of condone delay petition though speaks about receipt of copy on 23.06.2022 doesn’t say a single sentence about the delay after the receipt of the copy of the order by the appellant Board. Therefore, a perusal of the application to condone delay would clearly show as to how casual the approach of the Board was towards the orders of this Hon’ble Court and it also shows scant regard to the orders of this Hon’ble Court passed by the learned single judge. These respondents tried to locate a single sentence in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.01 of 2022 for ascertaining a single reasons for the delay in filing the writ appeal, but the same is not traceable from the affidavit filed on behalf of the Board. It is well settled law that even in the cases filed by the administration, condoning the delay cannot

be a matter of routine and the party seeking condonation of delay should atleast submit a semblance of reason while seeking condonation of delay. Since the same is lacking in the present case, the delay of 179 days ie., almost 6 months cannot be condoned. Hence, this affidavit.”

08. They also contended that pursuant to the orders in their writ petition they gave detailed representation to the petitioner on 24.06.2022 and thereafter on 11.07.2022 but there was no response or any whisper from the petitioner in compliance of the writ orders of this Court though the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board implemented the writ orders of this Court.

09. It is to be recorded that the length of delay is 115 days as argued by both sides.

10. On the above referred facts and circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that for Government and its instrumentalities the process of decision making is encumbered by procedures and hierarchy and therefore while considering the ‘delays’ a certain amount of latitude is not impermissible and such a ‘little ply at the joints’ has always been shown by the Courts and the petitioner cited in this regard the decision G.Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore[1]. In elaboration, the learned counsel submits that if the explanation does not smack of mala fides and if it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration and placed reliance on the ratio in N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishna Murthy[2].

11. As against it, the learned counsel for respondents submit that the petitioner is aware and conversant with the issues involved and the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter and the cause of delay does not have plausible explanation. Learned counsel argued that the Courts have been considering these category of matters with a different perspective holding that the claim on account of impersonal machinery and bureaucratic methodology cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available and referred to the ratio in Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd.[3].

1 (1988) 2 SCC 142.

2(1998) 7 SCC 123

3MANU/SC/0132/2012

12. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration on these rival submissions. The controversy in the writ petition pertains to service law and jurisprudence. Decisions in such areas of law always have cascading effect. When a seemingly serious question of law is proposed to be placed by way of a writ appeal, Courts considering the questions of delay in preferring such appeals, should not loose sight of the significance of the litigated subject matter. Reference in this regard is in Divisional Manager, Plantation Division, Andaman & Nicobar Islands v. Munnu Barrick[4].

13. The cause of delay on part of the petitioner consisted in its consultation with its co-litigant, namely, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Consultation with the Advocate, decision making at the Board level, seeking approvals from the superiors. It is true, the affidavit of petitioner lacks details of dates of these events, yet the existence of such process can not be doubted nor is at dispute. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid the guidance holding that ‘sufficient cause’ is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. When delay is condoned liberally the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing both parties – Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji[5].

14. It is for these reasons we arrive at the view that the facts stated explaining the delay are sufficient as those facts are the causes that retarded the timely decision on part of the petitioner. Therefore, the delay of 115 days is condoned.

15. Accordingly, this Petition is allowed.

___________________________

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

Date: 23.02.2023 KLNS/Ivd

_____________________________

Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J

5(1987) 2 SCC 107

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

I.A.No.1 of 2022 inWRIT APPEAL No.1022 OF 2022

Date: 23.02.2023

KLNS/Ivd