GOWRAMMA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ appeal is filed challenging the order dtd. 30/8/2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.23876-23877/2011. There is a delay of 3130 days in filing the writ appeal. I.A No.1/2022 - an application for condonation of delay is presented along with an affidavit.

(2.) The perusal of the affidavit reveals casual approach of the appellant. It is surprising to note that when the appellant suffered dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay, it was expected for her to be more careful and approach the appellate forum within a reasonable period. But, only a lame excuse for inordinate delay of nearly 3130 days is revealed in the affidavit. On one hand, vague grounds that the appellant lost the writ petition number and contact number of the advocate who represented them in the writ petition are raised and on the other hand an attempt is made to submit that the appellant was not keeping good health, that too in the year 2022. There is absolutely no explanation, leave aside any satisfactory explanation, for inordinate delay in filing the appeal.

(3.) The Hon'ble Apex Court, time and again, has cautioned that though the delay by itself may not be a ground but, the party must satisfy the Court and if the party fails to satisfy the Court, party will have to suffer for his casual approach. We may quote here the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dtd. 16/12/2021 in the matter of MAJJI SANNEMMA @ SANYASIRAO vs. REDDY SRIDEVI & ORS. (CIVIL APPEAL No .7696/2021) . In paragraph 7.1 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to the judgment of RAMLAL, MOTILAL AND CHHOTELAL vs. REWA COALFIELDS LTD ., (1962) 2 SCR 762. Similarly, in paragraph 7.4, the Hon'ble Apex Court observes thus: