The High Court allowed the Writ Appeal, condoning a delay of 323 days in filing a restoration petition because the appellant, aged 85, could not immediately contact counsel after the original writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Writ Appeal is allowed; the order dismissing the restoration petition is impliedly set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO : 810 of 2009
(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04/11/2008 in WP NO : 5001 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.)
Between: Parimi Surya Rao son of Somanna Surapuvari Gudem H/o Buttaigudem V& M West Godavari Dist
APPELLANT
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI A N D THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO : 810 of 2009
J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari)
This Writ Appeal assails the order dated 04.11.2008 made in W.P.M.P. No. 20489 of 2008 in W.P. No. 5001 of 2004 by a learned Single Judge whereby the petition filed seeking to condone the delay of 323 days in filing the restoration petition, was dismissed.
2. The appellant herein filed the above writ petition challenging G.O. Ms. No. 41 dated 9.4.1996 issued by the Government whereby the revision filed by the appellant herein was rejected by the Government on the ground that the transactions took place from the tribes to non-tribes between the period from 11.9.59 to 8.10.1963 when the Land Transfer Regulation was very much in vogue without obtaining permission in writing from the Agent to the Government and, therefore, the two transactions cannot be sheltered under the judgments dated 18.9.19985 of the Supreme Court in CA No. 6 of 1995, 8422 of 1995 arising out of SLP No. 10746 of 1981, whereunder it was held that the provisions of Land Transfer Regulation shall operative prospectively and shall have no retrospective effect. The said writ petition was dismissed for nonprosecution/default on 2.8.2007 by the learned Single Judge
observing that though the matter had been coming for final hearing for the last one month, but when it was called, the learned counsel for the appellant was absent. Seeking to set aside the said dismissal order, the appellant herein filed WPMP(SR) 81893 of 2008 and also filed WPMP No. 20489 of 2008 seeking to condone the delay of 323 days in filing restoration petition, which was dismissed by the order impugned in this Writ Appeal.
3. It is case of the appellant that when his counsel was arguing in the other court, the above writ petition was called and eventually dismissed for non-prosecution/default and since he being aged 85 years, could not contact his counsel immediately and thus there occurred a delay of 323 days in filing the petition to restore the above writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and Mr. V.Venugopal Rao, learned counsel for the Respondent No.5.
5. As can be seen from the facts and circumstance of the case, since the appellant is aged 85 years, he could not immediately contact his counsel to file the present petition, we deem it just and proper to condone the delay in filing the restoration
petition.
6. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No order as to
costs.
JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
18-6-2009. I s L
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 323 days in filing a restoration petition for a writ petition seeking to condone delay should be condoned considering the appellant's advanced age?
Whether the Writ Appeal assailing the order dismissing the restoration petition should be allowed on that account?
Parimi Surya Rao
The Secretary to the Govt Social Welfare (LTR-Department AP
District Collector Agent to the Govt of AP West Godavari Dist
The Special Dy Collector, Tribal Welfare, K.KPuram
The Mandal Revenue Officer
Daid Narayana Swamy
T. Meena Kumari
Sanjay Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
