IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 1263 of 2008 Between: Imam Ahmed S/o.John Mohd.Khan R&B Srikalahasthi r/o.8-564,Harihara Bavi, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Secretary to Govt., Irrigation & Command Area Development Dept., Government of AP., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Superintendent Engineer (R&B), Kadapa Circle ,kadapa 3 The Executive Engineer (R&B) Tirupati Divison, tirupati, Chittoor District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating toMA.No.1949/2003 in MASR.No.5775 of 2003 in OA.No.7037/1997 on the file of the AP Administrative Tribunal, enquire into the matter and quash the order of the AP Administrative Tribunal, passed in MA.No.1949/2003 in MASR.No.5775/2003 in OA.Nol.7037/1997 dated 5.9.2007 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust unfair and violative of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and to consequentially restore the case bearing OA.No.7037/1997 on the file of AP Administrative Tribunal to its original file the same may be entertain according to the law to dispose of the same and to grant such other relief or reliefs and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SRINIVASA SHARMA Counsel for Respondent No.: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order, dated 05.09.2007 passed in M.A. No. 1949 of 2003 in MASR No.5775 of 2003 in O.A. No. 7037 of 1997 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and to declare the same as illegal, discriminatory, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and to consequentially restore O.A. No. 7037 of 1997 to its original file, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner filed OA No. 7037 of 1997 which was returned raising an objection as to its maintainability in view of the fact that the petitioner herein had earlier filed OA No. 7272 of 1992 for the same relief and which was dismissed. However, the records show that the O.A. was numbered and subsequent thereto, notices were issued to the respondents and the O.A. was dismissed at the stage of admission by the Tribunal by order dated 9.12.1999. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.17019 of 2001, which was allowed by order dated 21.8.2001 and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. It is stated that thereafter the OA was listed on several occasions, but since brother of the counsel for the petitioner suffered severe ill-health, the counsel could not thoroughly follow up the case. However, on 14.2.2003, the counsel came to know that the OA was dismissed as long back as on 31.1.2002 itself. Therefore, on 2.5.2003, an application in MA No. 1949 of 2003, seeking to condone the delay of 427 days in filing the restoration petition for restoring OA No. 7037 of 1997 to its original file, was filed under Rule 8(3) of the A.P.A.T. Rules, 1989, which was dismissed by the Tribunal through order dated 30.1.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 6476 of 2004 and this court by order dated 27.9.2006 allowed the said writ petition directing the Tribunal to pass appropriate orders. Eventually, the Tribunal, by order dated 5.9.2007 dismissed the OA refusing to condone the delay. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed inter alia contending that the Tribunal instead of adverting to the reasons for justification of delay in filing the condone delay petition, has unnecessary resorted to the merits of the issue and mis-directed itself. It is contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the delay was due to the fact that brother of the counsel for the petitioner was suffering with serious ill-health and ultimately died, as such, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the MA filed for condoning the delay. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that after the Writ Petition No. 17019 of 2001 was allowed by this court, the OA NO. 7037 of 2007 was listed on 11.12.2001 and on several occasions thereafter. The said OA was dismissed on 31.1.2002, which the counsel came to know on 14.2.2003. It is not case of the petitioner that he was not aware that his counsel was unable to attend the Tribunal, inasmuch as his brother was suffering with serious ailment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not sound well that in the absence his counsel, the petitioner also did not attend the Tribunal or that he did not even make enquiries about the progress of the O.A. filed by him, for such a long time. No specific ground is made out except saying that brother of the petitioner was suffering with chronic ailment. De hors merits of the issue, we do not see any justifiable reason to condone the abnormal delay, differing with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J. March 3, 2008 MAS.