Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Telangana High Court Monday rejected two writ appeals filed 460 and 488 days late by the state government against a single judge’s order and made it clear that the state can no longer rely on a “sense of entitlement” to excuse extreme procedural delays. It added that government functionaries must now also be “technology literate”.
The division bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar was dealing with appeals that challenged an earlier judgment which declared a 2001 land acquisition by the state government, concerning plots in the city’s Silicon Heights near Manikonda Jagir, for a “Cyber Park” as illegal and arbitrary due to mandatory procedural violations.
Dismissing the two writ appeals, the bench stated: “…the appellants have failed to make out a case for condonation of delay of 460 days and 488 days, respectively, in filing the two writ appeals. There is no explanation even remotely satisfactory provided by the appellants to fulfil the sufficiency benchmark under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.”
The single judge, in his order in November 2023, had directed the state to consider the petitioners’ request for alternative land allotment and, if that was not possible, directed the state to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings for the land. This was challenged by the collector of Rangareddy district and the managing director of the Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation in two separate appeals.
The latest judgment, which referenced the precedent set by the “Postmaster General case”, rejected the applications for condonation of delay in both appeals. The court found that the appellants failed to provide an explanation “even remotely satisfactory” to meet the “sufficiency benchmark” required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The bench also reiterated the principle that condonation of delay is an exception, not an anticipated benefit, particularly for competent government departments. “Sufficiency of cause must also exhibit diligence and the intention to make good the shortfall. The stand taken by the appellant who seeks condonation of delay cannot be borne out of privilege and a sense of entitlement,” the bench stated in its order.
It also noted that the state functionary cannot claim a separate period of limitation when they had competent persons who were familiar with court proceedings. “We are now in 2025 where, in the light of technological advancement, competence would essentially have to include technology-literate persons who have the wherewithal to remain alive and alert to court proceedings,” it added.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
