IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 638 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11/04/2008 in WP NO : 18810 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: J.Haritha D/o.J.Papa Rao, GSL Medical College, NH-5, Rajahmundry. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Principal Secretary to Government, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Member Secretary for Fee Fixation of Fees Structure Committee, 1st floor (South Wing), Gagan Vihar, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Dean, GSL Medical College, NH-5, Lakshmuipuram, Rajahmundry. 4 The Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.J.P.RAO Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 638 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by an order, dated 11.04.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMP No.2499 of 2008 in Review WPMP No.147547 of 2007 in WP No.18810 of 2006. The appellant herein is petitioner in the writ petition. She filed WPMP No.2499 of 2008 in the above WP seeking to condone the delay of 221 days in filing the Review Petition in the above W.P. The learned Single Judge dismissed the WPMP No.2499 of 2008. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner. When the matter is called, the learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 is absent. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned G.P and the learned Counsel for respondent No.4. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent that originally, the above writ petition was dismissed and hence, the matter was carried in appeal, in which, the learned Counsel made a request that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the appeal with a liberty to seek review of the order in the writ petition. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the prayer made. In pursuance of the judgment in the appeal, the petitioner filed review petition along with a petition to condone the delay in filing the review petition. But the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. According to the appellant, the delay is only 45 days, but it is disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the college that the delay is 221 days. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the Writ Appeal No.720 of 2007, We feel that it is a fit case wherein delay can be condoned. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.M.P.2499 of 2008. Consequently, W.P.M.P.2499 of 2008 is allowed. Registry is directed to post the review WPMP before the learned Single Judge. __________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 31st July, 2008 Nn/Gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 638 of 2008 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 31.07.2008