IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL NO : 16 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 21/10/2008 in WP No: 11253 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: T.Nagamallaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, R/o.Mylardevapally Village, R.R.District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1. The Vice President, HUDA , 1-8-323 , Paiga Plaza , Police Lines, Secunderabad. 2. The Area Manager, M/s . Indian Oil Corporation, 126 Sarojinidevi Road, Secunderabad-- 2. 3. The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Nampally, Hyderabad. 4. The Deputy Director, Survey Land Records, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioner Of Municipality, Rajender Nagar Municipality, Rajendernagar , R.R.District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.B.SAI RAM GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL No.16 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) 1. Heard both sides. At their request, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The short question involved in this writ appeal is - whether the delay, which has occurred in filing the application for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed for default, needs to be condoned or not? 3. In the main writ petition, the petitioner sought certain reliefs and when the matter came up for hearing, it was dismissed for default due to his absence. While filing the application for restoration, the delay has occurred and a petition to condone the delay was filed, which was dismissed. 4. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the bundle was misplaced and therefore there was delay in filing the application for restoration. The learned Single Judge did not find favour with the reasons given by the appellant and dismissed the application. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and also on a perusal of the material on record, we are of the view, on a totality of the circumstances, especially in view of the questions involved in the main writ petition itself, an opportunity ought to be given for hearing the matter on merits rather than denying the same. Even taking into account the reasons shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application, especially as to the death of father-in-law of the petitioner and also the accident, which has occurred to the junior counsel who was asked to represent, prima facie the reasons are validly sufficient. 6. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. The delay is condoned and the application filed for restoration also stands allowed. The order of dismissal dated 27-01-2006 is set aside and the writ petition is restored to file. Post the writ petition itself for final hearing. There shall be no order as costs. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 24th February, 2009 Lrkm/Bss