IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL Nos: 1543 and 1239 of 2001 WRIT APPEAL No: 1543 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 13482 OF 1994 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. Counsel for the Respondents: MR.VIJAY KUMAR HEROOR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1239 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 13482 OF 1994 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.LAKSHMA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL Nos.1543 and 1239 of 2001 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) These Writ Appeals are filed against the order dated 08.03.2001 in W.P.M.P.No.4773 of 2001 and Review W.P.M.P. (SR) No.116235 of 1997 in W.P.No.13482 of 1994, whereby the learned Single Judge refused to condone the delay of 114 days in filing the review petition. The learned Single Judge observed that the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition are not sufficient and accordingly, dismissed the said petition. We are also of the opinion that the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed along with the petition for condonation of delay are not sufficient and as such, there are no grounds to allow the Writ Appeals. The Writ Appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J Date: 14.07.2008. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. GS