IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 21343 of 2008 Between: Vaka Venkateshwarlu S/o. Late Vaka Venka Reddy Research Institute Research Station, Kandukur, Prakasam District, A.P. Having Temporarily Come down to Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director,. Central Tobacco Research Institute, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, A.P. 2 The Director General Indian Council of Agricultrual Research, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi. 3 S. Koteshwara Rao Naidu Research Institute, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, A.P. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or writs, order or directions more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the letter issued by the Respondent No.2 dt. 18-8- 2003 as unreasonable, arbitrary contrary to law and not a ﬁnal order, thereby directing it to consider the representation made by the petitioner dt. 22-4-2004 in terms of the observations of the Central Administrative Tribunal made in OA No. 190 of 2003 dt. 21-2-2003 by providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as per law. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.A.ACHUTHANAND Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S.NARENDERNATH REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.21343 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the letter, dated 18.08.2003, issued by respondent No.2-Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi, as unreasonable and arbitrary and consequently to direct respondent No.2 to consider the representation made by the petitioner, dated 22.04.2004, in terms of the observations of the Central Administrative Tribunal made in O.A.No.190 of 2003, dated 21.02.2003, by providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 2. It appears, the petitioner, earlier, made a representation, dated 06.04.2000, to the 2nd respondent, through the 1st respondent, to rectify the anomaly caused to him on account of ﬁxing the scale of the 3rd respondent higher than his scale, by granting the beneﬁt of promotion to the 3rd respondent from the date of his acquiring post-graduation qualiﬁcation, and, thereby, making him Junior in status and scale to the 3rd respondent. When the said representation was not disposed of, he ﬁled O.A.No.190 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, which was allowed by its order, dated 21.02.3003, directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the representation, dated 06.04.2000, within a period of three months by passing appropriate orders according to law and as per rules. In compliance of the said orders, the 2nd respondent had sent a letter, dated 18.08.2003, rejecting the representation of the petitioner. While so, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not passed a reasoned and speaking ﬁnal order on the representation, dated 06.04.2003, submitted by him, but they simply issued a letter, dated 18.08.2003, rejecting the said representation, without assigning any cogent reasons, and, therefore, he ﬁled another representation, dated 22.04.2004, to the 2nd respondent, through the 1st respondent, seeking a ﬁnal order in the matter of rectiﬁcation of anomaly. As there was no reply to the said representation, he again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of ﬁling O.A.SR.No.3 of 2007, and as there was delay in ﬁling the said O.A.SR, he ﬁled a delay condonation petition in M.A.No.21 of 2007, and the same was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the delay condonation petition by condoning the delay, so as to dispose of the main Original Application on merits. 4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has declined to exercise the powers under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, on the ground that the reason assigned in the aﬃdavit for the delay caused in ﬁling the said O.A. is that due to ill health, the petitioner could not pursue the matter by leaving the oﬃce, which appeared to be not convincing to condone the delay, and, accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the delay condonation petition. Even it appears that the petitioner has not produced any medical certificate to prove his ill-health at the relevant time. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, we see no illegality in the impugned order calling for interference of this Court and the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the representation, if any, purported to have been ﬁled by the petitioner, is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 29.09.2008 v v