Dismissed

P.R.Mali, v. The Inspector General of Police

Telangana HC10 Feb 2022WA/824/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses an interim application and rejects a writ appeal. The court declined to condone a delay of 2896 days filed by a petitioner regarding the termination of his services. The court held that mere residence in another state without day-to-day explanations for the delay was insufficient. Consequently, the appeal was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Interim application (I.A.No.1 of 2019) was dismissed; Writ Appeal (No. 824 of 2019) was rejected without costs.

P.R.Mali, Vs The Inspector General of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HrGH couRr^t?T IiED:IilioF TELANGANA

¶2

THURSDAY, ..,-TWO^{THE TENTH DAY OFFEBRUARY} TUOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA} AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶6

'1 0F 019 AND

¶7

RIT PE L o 24 F2 19

¶8

n"'"u^{the orderd ated} i,ll A!8?i A!8?i^{lli?,i,jEiJ :' ?"8?,"":ll:t :' ?"8?,"":ll:t ?"8?,"":ll:tJ3l?il:} 8n"[""1f " Between: ]-: 5I#?i,i'"r,?331"!["&^{H3l;,,*fli fi"S;'fl:i} "iii;'3"1"'l#El?['1"J"':']l?"i' Jaisalmar District

¶9

i,ll A!8?i A!8?i^{lli?,i,jEiJ :' ?"8?,"":ll:t :' ?"8?,"":ll:t ?"8?,"":ll:tJ3l?il:}

¶10

Between:

¶11

"A'PELLANT/PET'rI.NER

¶12

AND

¶13

r Reserve^po r i ce^{F o rce,so uths ector'} I l[?,i.#[,,: r","t jli,iil l"Jiifu ?,.#ra 2 The Commandant,^{83 Batallion' CentralReservePolice Force'SunnyHimmat'} .lammu and^Kashmir'

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

I.A.N :1O^{F 201I}

¶16

tatedⁱⁿ Petition^{Under Section 151 CPCpraying'thal"inthe^circumstances} mav be^ples ased^to nst the the affidavit^{riled in support} "i't#^{J"i'i'git' ine Higtr} ^Court ile.;lil:Li,:j"]l],^{ti j:!& I ;iil:, I'rls i:z'ir:i!: o3:0""' "n''}

¶17

I.A.No.2^{OF20 19}

¶18

tatedⁱⁿ Petition^{Under Section 151 CPC prayingthal"inthe-circumstancess} ased^to rhe affidavit^{fited in support} "i',#^{o"i,ai,r.ine Hign} -Court may be^ple suspend^{the orderdated ta-''ulidiipasseoin WP No 2742 of 2000'}

¶19

counsel^{for the Appellant : M/S'VLADIMEERKHATOoN}

¶20

counsel^{for the Respondents: sRl'NRAJESHWAR RAO'SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT}

¶21

The Court^{made the followingiudgment:-}

¶22

THE HON'BLE THE CIIIEF JUSTICE SATIS}I CHANDRA SHARIYIA AND THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶23

I.A.No.1 of 2019 AND WRIT APPEAL No.824 o f 2079

¶24

coMMON JUDGMENT i lP.rthellonbk th? t-/rk1 .rlsrr(t, -Sd:i_-,i (.iri,t.l,d Stta rtr

¶25

¶26

The present rvrit appeal is arising out of order dated 18.10.2011 passed in W.p.No.2742 oI 2OOO by which the Iearned Single Judge has not interfered with the order of termination of the services of the writ petitioner dated 25.09.1997.

¶27

It was a case where the writ petitioner was absented for 54 days without ary permission and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Against the said order, the present writ appeal has been preferred with delay. As per the affidavit filed in support of the delay application, the delay is 326O days. However, on scrutiny, the office has stated the delay to be. 2896 days only. The reason assigned for condonation of delay is that the writ petitioner is residing in Rajasthan and he was not aware of the order passed by this Court. When he came to know about the order in the month of August, 2019, he immediately rushed to this Court.

¶28

In the considered opinion of this Court, the writ petitioner should have enquired from his counsel in time about the status of the case and as day to day delay has not been explained except for making a bard statement that he

¶29

¶30

)

¶31

was residing in^{Rajasthan,this Court does not find any}

¶32

reason to condone^{the delaY.}

¶33

Resultantly, I.A.No.1^{of 2Ol9 isdismissed and} consequently^{writ appeal fails and is accordingly rejected'} Miscellaneous^{petitions, ifany, shall stand closed'}

¶34

There shall be no^{orderas to costs.}

¶35

SD/-C H.VE N KATESWARU LU DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY'

¶36

SECTION OFFICER

¶37

To 1. One CC to SRI.VLADIMEER KHATOON, Advocate IOPUC] 2. ONE CC tO SRI.N,RAJESHWAR RAO, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT IOPUC]

¶38

Two CD Copies

¶39

One spare copy

c.,' SA

HIGH COURT

DAIED:1010212022

JUDGMENT

16E S I i€
-tB 2022
o-),J 23 f
l;

¶45

t_A.NO.1 0F 2019 AND

¶46

WRIT APPEAL NO: 824 OF 2019

¶47

DISMISSING THE W.A

¶48

WITHOUT COSTS.

P.R.Mali, v. The Inspector General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.R.Mali, v. The Inspector General of Police

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

P Satish Kumar, Hyderabad Vs Prl Secy, Cons.Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, Hyd and Anr.

Smt. Vanitha Bai Vs The State of Telangana

A.Durga Bhavani Vs The Union of India

J. Lenora Lavanya Vs M/s. Kotak Mahindra bank Ltd.

Burra Lingaiah Yadav Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Smt Vishni Bai Harwani, Vs Vorla Seetha Ram Reddy and 111 others