Dismissed

State of Andhra Pradesh, v. M.Narasimha Rao

Telangana HC7 Mar 2012WP/10826/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition seeking condonation of a 789-day delay in filing a Plaint. The Court found the explanation for delay failed to satisfy Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, leading to the rejection of the Plaint and dismissal of the main writ petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Plaint to condone delay dismissed and rejected; main writ petition dismissed as infructuous.

State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs M.Narasimha Rao — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶2

W.P.M.P.No.35573 of 2011 In W.P.M.P (SR) No.135771 of 2011 In WRIT PETITION No.10826 of 2000

¶3

DT.07-03-2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

State of A.P. represented by Principal Secretary To Government, Energy, Forests, Environment, Science and Technology Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & ors

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

M.Narasimha Rao Asst. Conservator of Forests, PA to Conservator of Forests (Retired) & ors

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Appellant: G.P. For Services I

¶11

Counsel for respondent: Sri The Court made the following Judgment:

¶12

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶13

W.P.M.P.No.35573 of 2011

¶14

In W.P.M.P (SR) No.135771 of 2011 In WRIT PETITION No.10826 of 2000

¶15

JUDGMENT: Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.G.Shankar)

¶16

The petitioners in W.P.No.10826 of 2000 seek to condone the delay of 789 days in filing W.P.M.P(SR) No.135771/2011 in the Writ Petition to set aside the default order dated 27-07-2009 against the 1^st respondent therein.

¶17

The 1^st respondent filed O.A.No.15327 of 1991 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (“the Tribunal” for short) for the quashing of G.O.Rt.No.854, Forests and Rural Development, dated 08-07-1982 and for his reinstatement into service. Regarding the relief of quashing of disciplinary enquiry on final orders, the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to treat the period of absence from 19-04-1985 to 26-04-1985 and from 16-07-1986 to July 1989 as leave to which the 1^st respondent is entitled to. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed W.P.No.10826 of 2000.

¶18

While things stood thus, the writ petition was dismissed against the 1^st respondent for non-service of notice. The orders of the Court were passed on 27-7-2009. As the 1^st respondent is the person against whom the petitioners seek relief, the 1^st respondent is the necessary party in the writ petition. Consequently, to set aside the default order, the petitioners filed W.P.M.P (SR) No.135771 of 2011.

¶19

Notice was served upon the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent made a very lengthy endorsement on the notice, inte alia, claiming that he had been unwell, that the very petition was engineered to harass him further, that he

¶20

was at the fag end of his life, that he had been ailing and that he required at least 3 months time to respond either personally or through a counsel.

¶21

Be that as it is, the question is whether the delay deserves to be condoned. The petitioners assigned reasons for the delay in para 8 of the affidavit, which may be produced as under:

¶22

“I submit that the petitioners were not aware of the orders of this Hon’ble Court 27-09-2009 till recently when the Government Pleader informed the same. Immediately steps are taken to seek to set aside the order of dismissal for not complying with the orders of the Court.”

¶23

A reading of Para 8 of the affidavit discloses that absolutely no grounds are made out to condone the delay in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. Therefore, we do not see any reason to condone the delay in filing the W.P.M.P (SR) No.135771 of 2011. This petition consequently is dismissed. As the petition to condone the delay in filing the W.P.M.P(SR).No.135771 of 2011 is dismissed, W.P.M.P (SR) No.135771 of 2011 is rejected.

¶24

As the writ petition was dismissed against the 1^st respondent, who is the main aggrieved person, the very writ petition becomes infructuous and does not survive. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶25

______________ V. ESWARAIAH,J

¶26

_______________ K.G.SHANKAR,J

¶27

Dt:7-03-2012 grk

¶28

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶29

(The Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice K.G.Shankar)

¶30

W.P.M.P.No.35573 of 2011 In W.P.M.P (SR) No.135771 of 2011 In WRIT PETITION No.10826 of 2000

¶31

DT.07-03-2012

State of Andhra Pradesh, v. M.Narasimha Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Andhra Pradesh, v. M.Narasimha Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Vs Ch. Sankara Rao ( Hg 263 )

The National Thermal Power Corporation Limited Vs M. Sathish

The Commissioner, Vs N. Prasad

The Divisional Forest Officer, Vs Sri v. Baba Saheb

The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Vs T. Surender

B.G.N.R. Anjaneyulu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh