Dismissed

Akula Veeraiah,Nizamabad Dist v. Commissioner of C.S,Hyd,and 4 Otrs

Telangana HC16 Sept 2022WA/113/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ appeal challenging an order rejecting an application for condonation of delay. The court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to quasi-judicial authorities under special enactments, and no power exists to condone delay beyond the specific statutory period.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000 payable to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority.

Akula Veeraiah,Nizamabad Dist Vs Commissioner of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT }:OR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, TIIE SIXTEENTI1 DAY OF SEPIEN/BER TWO TIIOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶5

WRIT APPEAI- NO: 113 OF 2012

¶6

Writ Appeal under clause^'1 5 of the Letters Patent filed against order dated 1B-01-201 1 in W.P.No.33506 of 2010 on the file of lhe High Court.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Akula Veeraiah, S/o. Akula Bhoomaiah Aged 83 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No.928, Adloor Yella Reddy Village, Sadasivanagar lvlandal Nizamabad District.

¶9

,..APPELLANT

¶10

AND

¶11

The Commissioner of Civil Supplies. A P. Hyderabad

¶12

The District Collector, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District

¶13

The Joint Collector, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy. Nizamabad District

¶15

Smt. Kundena Jyothi, Wo. K. Sivacheran, Aged about 33 yrs., R/o. H.No.74'1 , Rajampet Village, Biknoor Mandal. Nizamabad District

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

WAMP. NO:203 OF 2012

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the 3'd respondent in proceedings No: C56/813/2009, dt.21 1.2011, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶19

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI CH. JANARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI S. BHOOMA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶20

The Court made the following JUDGMENT:

¶21

THI HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE TIJJA - B TIf,-'AN AND

¶22

TH:^] HON'BLE SRI JUS'IICE C.V.BHASKAR TIEDDY

¶23

WRIT APPEAL No.1L3 of2012

¶24

4LDG!4EN^{'.itt'et ttL(Iton'bltthe ChpJJustice LJjjal Bh,uga} I

¶25

Hear I Mr. Ch.Janardhan Reddy, ]eanrr:cl cc unsel for tht: appclli n t

¶26

This vrit appeal has been preferrecl .rgainst :l're order datt:cl 18.{^,l 201 1 passed by the learned Srng c Judge dismissing W.P.No.33506 of 2O1O filed by the rppellant him self.

¶27

From t he materials on record it is s( en that respondent No.5 is operating a fair pri<:e srt:p, u nder the Andhra Pr: desh State Public Distribution Sir stem (Control) Order, 200 , as made applicable to the Stalt :l'Telangana. rn one This has been challenged by the appll [a rt proceeding rfter the other without success.

¶28

I I.

¶29

In ar appeal before respondent Nc..l respondent No.5 succe ded vide the order dated 21.01 20 10, against

¶30

¶31

which appellant filed revision petition belore responderrt No.2. On the ground of delay in filing the revision petition and taking the vlew that provisions of Section 5 ol the Limitation Act, 1963, would not be applicable to such revlsl0n proceedings, the revision petition came to be dismissed by order dated 11.10.2010. It u,as this order which came to be challenged in the related writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed in follou,ing terms:

¶32

"The petitioner who for obvious reasons is after rcspondent No.5 to see that her authorisation is cancelled on a spacious ground of her not residing in the village for which she holds the fair price shop authorization has initiated yet another round of litigation by filing this writ petition.

¶33

¶34

A perusal of the contents of the affidavit hled in support of writ petition would show that the litigation is hanging fire since 16.71.2007 when the authorization of respondent No.5 was cancelled on t.l.e sole ground of her alleged non residence at the Rajampet village. Since then respondent No.S is dragged to different fora. When she eventua.liy succeeded .before respondent No.3 who by his order, dated 21.01.2010 sought to put a quietus to the litigation by allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.5 and setting aside order, dated 21.O5.2OO9 of respondent No.4 cancelling her authorization, the petitioner has filed a Revision Petition

¶35

bcfor rcspor"Idcnt No.2 along with an applicatiotr for cond, nirtion of delay, respondent No.2 u,ho l-,as first detrlt ',i'rth thc petitioner's application for condon ation of delay hirs dismissed the same and in m.y ue',v right y so on tl ,l ground that under Clause 21(i; oi- tLe An lhra Pradt sh State Public Distribution Systr:n (Cor trol) Orde . 200 1 (for short^'Control Order') .an aggrieved persc r :;hall file a revisiorr within 3O days Ii<,n the date o[ co n rnunication to him of such order. I r is nt,t in dispt le that the revision hled by t1e petrt.oner was beyor d the prescribed time limit. Respondent N,r.2 held that r s rt is not a civil Cortrt, Section 5 of tler: Limitirtion Act, 1963 (for short^'the Limitation Acr') has no appli, a1 ion.

¶36

At the hearing of Sri Ch.Janarclhan Reddy, learn d counsel for the petitioner, strenuc usl-y conte rcled that while it is irot in dispute that r,rsl)on lent No.2 s not a civil Court, srtill he is entitled to r:on,lone the d 'lay in hling the revision petition in t!r(, same way as re ,pondent No.3 has entertained the appe rl frle 1 by respc rdent No.S beyond the prescnbed perio(l of limitr l.ion.

¶37

The legal principle that the Cou rts ald the statu ory functionaries exercising judicizrl :r qrrasijudic; rl power for resoluti6n of disputes ar,sinl; u rder speci I enactments have no power to condon: r1eley in liling ,1;15s5 beyond the time stipulated by s r,:hL sp :cial statu,:s, is fairly well settled. (Sec: CCE and Customs Vs. I tongo India (P) Ltd. ((2009) 5 SCC 7!t 1) and Chaf isgarh State Electricity Board 'lls. Cer.tral

¶38

¶39

Electricity Regulatory Commission ((20 I O) 5 SCC 23))

¶40

Admittedly, respondent No.2 is not a civil Court and therelore, the provision.s of Section 5 of thc Limitation Act have no application. it is also not in dispute that the provisions of lhc Control Order do not empower respondent No.2 to cntertain a revision petition beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, the impugned ordel whereby the petitioner's application for condonation of delay has been rejected does not suffcr from any illcgality or infirmity lvarranting interference by this court.

¶41

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ pctition fails and is accordingly dismissed."

¶42

On thorough consideration of all aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error or infirmity to warrant interference. As a matter of fact, appeal ought not to have been filed. Be that as it may, we find no good ground to entertain the writ appeal.

¶43

Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees five thousand only) to be paid to the

¶44

¶45

Telar-rgan r State Legal Se6,ices Authoriiy \,ithin rhirty

¶46

dals

¶47

Mis ellaneous applications pending, rf irny, shall

stard clo ;erl.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

w.A.NO.1'13 0F 2012

R:;. Ps.

Cost Quantified by^.on'ble Court (That the petitioner herein is directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Onl, ) to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority wi rin thirty days.)

5000- 00

'I DTAL

5.000 - 00

//TRUE COPY//

ST), T. KR SHNA KUMAR DEI'UI'Y REGISTRAR 4.

¶58

SECTION OFFICER