IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1264 OF 2009 Dt.03.11.2009 Between: The Divisional Forest Officer (South) Warangal, Warangal District and others … Appellants And Patel Komurumma and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1264 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) This appeal has been filed against order dt.1.6.2009 in W.P.M.P. No.13434 of 2008 in W.P. No.21342 of 2006. The appellants are respondents in W.P.No.21342 of 2006. The Writ Petition was filed by the respondents against the appellants alleging that the latter were interfering with their possession. On 13.10.2006 an interim direction was given by the learned Single Judge directing the appellants not to interfere with the respondents’ possession of the land in dispute. The appellants filed W.V.M.P. No.13 of 2007 for vacating the said interim order. It is not in dispute that the said vacate stay application was listed before the learned Single Judge on as many as three occasions, namely, on 10.4.2007, 24.4.2007 and 27.7.2007 and on all the three occasions there was no representation whatsoever on behalf of the appellants. Therefore, the learned Single Judge made the interim order absolute on 27.7.2007. The appellants thereafter filed W.P.M.P.No.13434 of 2008 for condonation of delay of 247 days in filing an application for restoration of W.V.M.P.No.13 of 2007. That application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order impugned in the Writ Appeal. The learned Government Pleader for Forest submitted that due to failure on the part of the Government Pleader’s office clerk, posting of the vacate stay application in the list on the three occasions was not noticed. He, therefore, urged that the appellants may be given an opportunity to pursue the vacate stay application on merits. Having considered the facts referred to above, we are of the view that there was total lack of diligence on the part of the office of the Government Pleader. We are unable to countenance the contention that on all three occasions posting of the vacate stay application could not be noticed. It is not possible for us to accept the plea of the learned Government Pleader that the Government Pleader’s Office Clerk should receive the whole blame. Apart from the Government Pleader dealing with the subject concerned, he is given two Assistant Government Pleaders. No explanation has been forthcoming as to why neither the Government Pleader nor the two Assistant Government Pleaders did not bestow their attention to the case and monitor its posting. As the case was posted on as many as three occasions and on all the three occasions there was no representation, we have no hesitation to conclude that there was negligence on the part of the Government Pleader and the Assistant Government Pleaders assisting him apart from Government Pleader’s Office Clerk. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P. No.2640 of 2009, filed by the appellants for interim relief, is dismissed as infructuous. As the learned Government Pleader for Forest submitted that the respondents are in occupation of vast extent of forest land and as counter affidavit was also filed, liberty is given to the learned Government Pleader to move an application before the learned Single Judge for early hearing of the Writ Petition. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03.11.2009 bnr