The Fishermen Cooperative Society v. N. Anasuyamma

[ 34301 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD *".

TUESDAY,THE THIRW FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G,RADHA RANI l.A.NO.1 0F 2024 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL NO: 1176 OF 2024 writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Prefened Against the order Dated fitBlrr.23 Passed in W.P.NO 17390 of 2013 on the file of the High Court' \ Between:

t',.

The Fishermen Cooperative Society, T.L. Peta.(V)' Enkur Mandal, Khammam Olstrict, Cep by iis iresident Mr. P.'seetaramulu, S/o. tt4l..R"Iq La.chu,Aged 61 years. bttice at Fishermen Cooperative Society' T.L. Peta (V), tnkur Mandal. Khammam District ...APPELLANT/RESPONDE NT NO.4 AND

1. N. Anasuyamma, W/o. late Ranga Rao, Aged about 66 years, Occ Housewife, R/o. Janapahad, Nalgonda District.

2. N. Laxmi Narasimha Rao, S/o. Late Sita Rama Rao, Aged about 68 years, Fi./o. Kothagudem, Khammam District

3. N. Ramchander Rao, S/o. Late Sita Rama Rao, Aged about 60 years' R/o' Kothagudem, Khammam District.

4. N. Karuna Devi, W/o. late Subba Rao, Aged about 48 years, Fl/o' Balapur, Hyderabad.

5. N.V. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Sita Rama Rao, Aged about 52 years, Occ Govt. Service, Rl/o- Kothagudem, Khammam District.

6. N. lndira Kumar, D/o. Sita Rama Rao, aged about 65 years, Fl/o' Shamshirgunj, HYderabad.

...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS

7. The District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District.

8. The Assistant Director of Fisheries' Khammam, Khammam District

9. The Tahsildar. Enkuru Mandal, Khammam District.

...RESPONOENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2024 petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may oe preaseJ io condone the delay or 529 days in filing the writ appeJl in the interest otiirsiG. - .' lA NO: 3 oF 2024 petition under section '151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in suppo( of the petition, ine Higtr Court may t; ,"*; i"

suspend the operation of !!e-o-rd_9r-s passed by the rearned singG;roiein w.i. No. i7390 of 2o13 dated 13-03-2023. pending disposar or tne Writ npiu"i iri'n" interest of justice and equity Counsel for the Appellant:.SRt S.M.eURESHI, Sr. COUNSEL FOR SRt. MD ABDUL MATEEN QURESHI Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI SHAIK KARIMULLA Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2&3: -- Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.4 to 6: SRt PASAM MOHITH Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.7 to 9: Gp FOR FISHERIES The Court made the foltowing: JUDGMENT

THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI I.A.No.1 of 2O24 ln and WRIT APPEAL No. 1176 of2024 ORDER lper Hon'ble Dr.Justice G.Radha Rrrni): This application is filed by the petitioner - appellant - respondent No.4 under section 5 0f the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 529 days in filing the Writ Appr:al.

2.

Heard Sri S.M.Qureshi, Iearned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pasham Motrith ReddSr, learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 6.

3.

Learned Senior counsel for rhe petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the prcsident of Fishermen co-operative Society at Tutakalingannapeta Village, Enkoor Mandal of Khammam District. The respondents 1 to 6liled Writ Petition No'17390 of 2013 questioning the order passed by respondent No.7 i.e. the District collector vide Fll842l20 13 dated 04.03.2013 granting lease in favor of appellant - respondcnt No'4 s socieq'' There was a delay of 529 days in filing the Writ 'l-ipeal. Tire petitioner was not aware of the judgment passeci b-i' the ie arr-re d Single Judge in W'P'No' 1739O of 20i3. [{e r.r-as contir: rr,, us]}' puisuir'g the nlatter u'ith respondents 7 y3

SP,J&Dr.GRR,J uta-1176.-2024 and 8 for allotment of fishing rights. After visiting continuously for more than one year, the staff of respondent No.8 informed about the order passed by the Single Judge in W.P.No.|73SO of 2013 on 13.03.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the counsel and obtained the papers of the Writ Petition and approached the present counsel for filing the Writ Appeal, for which the delay occurred. The delay was not deliberate and wanton and prayed to condone the delay of 529 days in frling the Writ Appeal.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 6 on the other hand contended that the present application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the present Writ Appeal was Illed tvithout assigning any reasons. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner - appellant that the petitioner - appellant u-as not aware of the judgment dated 73.03.2023 in W.P.No.17390 of 2013 was not correct, as the petitioner - appellant had come on record in pursuant to filing of W.P.No.17390 of 2013 and fiied thcir coLrnter and vacate stay petition on 04.10.2013. After a detaile d consideration, the W.P.No. 17390 of 2013 was ordered in favor of the respondents. The petitioner - appellant was aware of the judgment passcd bv this Court in W.P.No.17390 of 2013. Inspite of being cognizatrt of order dated 13.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.17390 of 2013, thc petitioner miserably failed in filing the present appeal within the stipulated time period. In

SP,J&Dr.GRR,J wa_1l76-2o24 order to circumvent the legal requirements, the petitioner falsely stated that they were not aware of the said proceedings ald order dated 13.03.2023 passed in W.P.No. 17390 of 2Ol3- The petitioner being aware of the impugned order had not taken any steps to challenge the same. Hence, the petitioner was estopped from assailing the order. An application for condonation of delay ought not to be filed in a casual and cavalier manner. The afhdavit was devoid of any l j reasons / facts justifying the said delay. In the absence of the same, i j the application was liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The { application suffered from delav and latches and grossly barred by limitation and prayed to dismiss the same.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court 1n Post Master General and Others v. Living Media India Limited and another I and in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs and others v. Special Deputy Collector (Le;z it, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31248 of 2018 dated O8.O4.2024.

6.

Perused the record- '(2oL2) 3 scc 563 ' 2023 SCC Online SC 5 13

SP,J&Dr.GRR,jl sa lL76 2O24 7.

The application liled by the petitioner - respondent No.4 would disclose that the petitioner failed to give any specific dates as to when he came to know about the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1739O of 2013. The reasons mentioned by him appear to be very vague. As per the contention ol the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner carne on record in W.P.No. 17390 of 20 I 3 and filed their counter and also a vacate stal' petition on 04.10.2013 and thereafter after a detailed consideration of the matter, the learned Single Judge disposed of the matter in W.P No. 17390 of 2O l3 on 13.03.2023.

8.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Dead) by LRs. And others v. Special Deputy Collector {LAf (cireci sr-rpraf , held that:

'17. It must always be borne in mind that u hiLc i.onsrruing 'sulhcient cause'in deciding application under Sec.rion S of the Act, that on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribcri lbr filing an erppeal, substantive right in favour of a decree-holder. aci.rucs and rhis right ought not to be lightly disturbed. The ricr: rr',: - holcler treats the decree to be binding with the lapsc ol tuite .rnd may proceed on such assurnption creating new rights.

18. This Court as far back in 1962 in the case oI Ramlal, Motilal Aad Chhotelal vs, Rewa Coalfields Limited IAIR l()b2 SC 36ll has emphasized that even after suflicient causc itas t;et.n shou,n b,v a party for not filing an appeal within time. the saicl panr. is not entitled to the condonation of delay as excusing thr. clela-.. is thc discretionary jurisdiction vested with the court. Thc ,. rurr, clespitc establishmr:nt of a 'sufFrcient eause, for varirrus rc:lsons, rnay refuse to condone the delay depending upon th. bonir tlcles of the Pa rl-\ '

-/:1^ _/

/ SP,J&Dr.GRR,J wa LL76 2024

19. In Maqbul Ahmad arxd Ors. vs' Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Others [AIR 1935 PC B5l, it had been held that the court cannot grant an exemption from limitation on equitable consideration or on the ground of hardship. The court has time and again repeated that when mandatory provision is not complied with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone.

23. In Basawaraj and Another vs. SPecial Land Acquisitioa Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 8i], this Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based upon the facts and circumstarces of each case. The expression 'sufficient cause'as occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona Iide is writ large. It was also observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of the parties but it has to be applied with a1l its rigour as prescribed under the statlltc as the courts have no choice but to apply the law as it stands:rnd they have no power to condone the delay on equitable grounds.

24. It would be benefrcial to quote paragraph 12 of the aforesaid decision which clinches the issue ol thc manner in which equilibrium has to be maintained bct$'een adopting liberal approach and in implementing the st.rt iltc as it stands. Paragraph 12 reads as under:

" 12. It is a settled legal proposition tir.tt iau' of limiration may harshly affect a particular party but it hers to be applied with all its rigour when the statutc so prcscribes. Ttrc Court has no power to extend the period of limitarion on cquitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statuttln' prrtviston ls ncver an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that pro!'ision ro believe what it considers a distress resulting lllrn tts operation." The statutory provision may cause harclship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no cltoice but ro enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal ntaxtm dura lex sed lex which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. lt has c'ortsistently been held that, "inconvenience" is not a decisivt' fzrctor to be considered while interpreting a statute-"

25. This Court in the same breath in thc same very decision vide paragraph 15 went on to observe as under:

"15. The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been prescnted in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to expl:lin thc court as to what l

SP,J&Dr.cRR,J wa-lL76'2024 yfl"il';;:jl';ilJ'XY rvr,ich.means an adequare and -i'i'ii ri-uIii..:i'n':rl:'l"I]'9 lil to approach thc cou.i r9r wanr ;t';;;;

"ril: " etty is found to be nestigent, or circumstanc(.s ,,r ,r,. lt^ -?t his part in tt,. ri.l " una diligently .. ..-ri".i i:11t', ot found to have nor acred ground io .onaoril"i,"" tltlctrve-' there carrnot be a jr.rstified tt. .onaor,i;;';i;".#: Sown bv this courr in regard ro cause ro prevent . riti*Xl-l?

case there was no suffit'ienr :r*x _ jli s*i:. _-xt-ffl,]:ff i":[:":Hl, :+ :*i vrorarron ,[ thc s ta tu t o.a-::I". to passing an orde, iir showing ,,,,'; ;;";;".Y.

provrsrons and it tantamounrs r() supptrcd) - I to the legislature." (emphasis

26. On a harmonioLrs co aloresaid. ancl rlre 1r* ,r1'-d^lttfi:n of the provisions of the lau.. as rd down by this Court, it is evidenr thar:

(i) Lau. of limrtation i:

should be an t.nd to li;-}:td, up-on- public policy thar thcre rather rhan th,' r;g1.,1 t,l|ill'""

bv forfeiting trre rigtrt ; ;";";, (ii) A right or rhe rer ,,,,r"-a- ii r,, ", ;J .,Hr,l:i$, "h"" l:,J.:;..;:,:::.$ l; exrst allcr a fixed period of time;

(iii) The provisrons of tt ai',,..nrrl,',""r,';";""!;':: "'Titation Act have to be construcct sense w.hereas Scction sti.,l- ? has to be construed l" . "t.i.* ' has to be construed liberally;

(iv) In orcicr to advanc approach, -1u.t,."-o.ien1:

substantia-l justice, though ii beral Justrce ma' be kept ;n ,t9 'PPto"ch or cause "r ",]u=,,,n,,,,i :; ni;;,x ;* ;H,', # :1,Hl"ff ffi ,:n:. *,:":::1, : l"l, i: H:: l;:, : T,: ::'",..'i :: exerci se discretion to condon e r h. oI pou'q;- ir ait,..i,ll]',.I1o-h'explained, but thar exerr.isc "'en if s,rifi,',:.;,".,,;":''* T ."?lYtt al1d may not be exercise4 1s. ulhcrc ,t-,,".. ir '

inJ.a", es.tablished for various laclors such duc diligcnr.e: "'-'-lnate delay, negligence and want ol (vi) Merel.1.

does not m s()m,- p(.rsons obtained r e a n r h a r ", r,. * "L-",r$..j.,,fi li"r""lft ,31 #ii,il. I

SP, .I & Dr.GRR, J wa Ll76 2024 if the court is not satisfred with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;

(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision."

Considering the principles reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court u'hile considering the applications filed for condonation of delay, AS the petitioner failed to file within the stipulated time period and failed to give any reasons for llling the appeal vvith dela_v and the reasons given by him that he was not aware of the judgment dated 13.O3,2O23 in W.P.No.1739O of 2013 was very vague and un substantiate, it is considered fit to dismiss the application.

lO. In the result, I.A.No.1 of 2024 is dismissed. Consequently, W.A.No. 1176 of 2024 is also dismissed No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal if ;inr , shall stand closed.

SD/. I. NAGALAKSHMI DEP REGIST /TTRUE COPY// S ION OFFTCER 4llffiF*itr '"

To, KKS BSR w

HIGH COURT DATED:31 11:212024 ,. S. Il\.f€ ( Iri ,l i-J 'v 19 rtB zffi i;

,i,/ ^*r)/ ls:-":9', \

JUDGMENT

|.A.NO.1 0F 2024 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL NO: 1126 OF 2024 DISMISSING THE I.A. & WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS 8*t(4 Ykdft,