G LAKSHMANAMMAL Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the appellant had raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that there has been an inordinate delay of over 3 years. Our learned brother, Manoher Pershad, J. (as he then was), dealt with this question. After stating that the period of limitation was ordinarily 6 months, and after referring to a decision of the Bench in Eluru Venkata Subba Rao V. District Transportation Superintendent ( Traffic), Vijayawada, Southern Railway, (1957) 2 An.W.R. 233: AIR 1958 AP 206. to which the learned Judge was a party, in which the Bench took the view that applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will be entertained ordinarily within a period of six months, though in extraordinary circumstances the High Court may in its discretion excuse delay, held that the writ petitioner has been guilty oi laches. Mr. Venkata Subbarao Contends, with justification, that having so held, the learned Judge should have dismissed the writ petition. It may be stated that the order of the Tribunal was dated 3rd October, 1957. The Government not having filed any writ petition against it, was evidently content to remain silent, until a decision of the High Court in K. K. Rameswaraswami Varu v. Ramalinga Raju, 1958 1 An.W.R. 290. held that an application for review of an order of the Tribunal would lie to that Tribunal. This decision was rendered on 22nd November, 1957. Even after that, the Government did nothing till 23rd June, 1959, when a review petition was filed. This was dismissed on 15th February, 1960. Even after that, for 10 months, till 22nd December, 1960, the Government waited, when the writ petition, cut of which this appeal arises, was filed.

(2.) As already pointed out by our learned brother Manoher Pershad, J. (as he then was) the review petition was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation, but it was filed one and a half years after the order of the Tribunal and even after the dismissal of the review petition, the writ petitioner took nearly ten months to file this writ petition, all of which would go to show that the writ petitioner was guilty of laches. In this view, I do not think there are any special circumstances, much less extraordinary circumstances, to entertain the writ petition.

(3.) The preliminary objection is sustained, the appeal is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed with costs throughout. Advocate's fee Rs. 100. Appeal allowed; Writ Petition dismissed.