GOVERNMENT OF A P Vs. M A RAZZAQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in W.P. No. 18876 of 2001, namely, Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary in the Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, the District Collector, Hyderabad, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, represented by its Commissioner, and the Assistant City Planner, Circle No. V, Town Planning Section, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, have filed this petition praying this Court to condone the delay of 257 days in preferring the review petition seeking review of the orders dated 17-9-2002 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 18876 of 2001.

(2.) The only ground urged by the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing on behalf of the respondents in support of the condone delay petition is that though at the time of disposal of the writ petition it was admitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioners are owners of the entire extent of 621 Sq. yds. of land, but in the detailed report submitted by the District Collector to the Government pursuant to the receipt of the judgement in the writ petition, it was found that the petitioners are not the owners of the entire extent of 621 Sq. yds. of land, and that out the said extent, an extent of 173.14 Sq. yds. of land, covered by T.S. Nos. 111 and 114 is G.V.M. land and belongs to the Government, and as such, the question of payment of any compensation to the petitioners in respect of the said extent of 173.14 Sq. yds. of land, which does not belong to the petitioners, does not arise, and having regard to the discovery of this fact, the Government have decided to file petition for review of the judgement passed by this Court in the main writ petition, and thus delay of 257 days has occurred in filing the review petition. According to the learned Government Pleader the delay occasioned is purely on account of administrative factors and is neither wilful nor wanton, and prayed the Court to condone the inordinate delay of 257 days in filing the review petition.

(3.) The reasons assigned by the respondents-review petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay in filing the review petition are neither cogent nor convincing and do not commend to this Court. Except making bald statement that the delay occasioned is purely on account of administrative grounds and that the delay is neither willful nor wanton, no reason worth mentioning, which justifies condoning the inordinate delay of 257 days in filing the review petition, is stated. It is no doubt true that while dealing with applications relating to delay condonation filed by Government and Governmental authorities, the Courts should be liberal and flexible and should normally allow such applications and condone the delay, but in the instant case, no plausible explanation, muchless every day's delay is explained to condone the inordinate delay of 257 days in filing the review petition.