This court dismissed the writ petition challenging an earlier Tribunal order due to inordinate delay in filing, applying the doctrine of laches without awaiting explanation from the petitioner.
The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of doctrine of laches.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD
Writ Petition No.2090 of 2017
DATED:02-08-2017
Between:
B. Srinivas Yadav … Petitioner And The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat Hyderabad and others … Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PEITITONER: Mr. M. Damodar Reddy COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: G.P. for Services (TS)
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CVNR, J & GSP, J
2
ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy)
Order dt.13.7.2012 in O.A. No.4653 of 2012, on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, is questioned in this writ petition.
As noted above, the order impugned in this writ petition was passed nearly four and half years before filing of the writ petition. The petitioner has not explained any reason for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed on the well recognised doctrine of laches. On this ground alone, the writ petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.2434 of 2017 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
_
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J
02-08-2017
bnr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed due to inordinate delay.
B. Srinivas Yadav
The State of Telangana
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Gudiseva Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
