HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.13831 of 2001 PROCEEDING SHEET SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 19) 18-06- 2010 CVNR, J WPMP.No.15196 of 2010 This is an application to condone the delay of 636 days in filing an application to set aside order, dated 02-07-2008, dismissing Writ Petition No.13831 of 2001 for default. In his affidavit, filed in support of this application, the petitioner stated that on 06-08- 2008, he came to know that respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole, for recovery of an amount of Rs.50,000/- from his salary to implement the recovery orders impugned in the Writ Petition. H e further stated that his enquiries revealed that the Counsel engaged by him was not well and therefore, the Writ Petition was dismissed for default. The petitioner, therefore, sought for condonation of delay of 636 days in filing this application. A perusal of the record shows that the Writ Petition was dismissed for default on 2nd July, 2008. Even according to the petitioner, he came to know about the letter addressed by respondent No.2 to his counter-part of Prakasam District as early as 06-08-2008 proposing recovery of the amounts. The petitioner failed to give any reasons whatsoever for his not filing the application for restoration of the Writ Petition till 29-04-2010. In the absence of any explanation, much less a convincing one for his failure to file such an application within a reasonable time of his knowledge of the letter addressed by (pto.,) CVNR, J (contd…) respondent No 2 on 06 08 2008 I am of the view respondent No.2 on 06-08-2008, I am of the view that the petitioner failed to offer convincing reasons for condoning the huge delay of 636 days in filing the application for restoration of the Writ Petition. For the above-mentioned reasons, the WPMP is dismissed. ______________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J lur SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE BN, J & GC, J (Contd…) The learned single Judge found th a t respondents 2 to 4 in the Writ Petition were not eligible to be promoted a n d they had been promoted although they were ineligible. Respondents 2 to 4 have, now, filed an appeal with a delay of 164 days. Let the respondents file their counter to the application for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. There has been no stay of the judgment of the SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE learned single Judge. But the judgment of the learned single Judge is not being implemented from 29-12-- 2004. On last occasion also, we have told the learned Counsel for the appellant that the judgment needs to be implemented, and today, she has produced a copy of the letter received by Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate. This letter is nothing but an attempt to defeat the judgment of this Court in avoiding to consider the case of the writ petitioner for promotion. The relevant portion of this letter reads as under: ‘Once the vacancies a r e cleared, we are interested to consider the case of Mr.D.Harinatha Reddy, as it was submitted to the Court. Hence, we request you to put forth (P.T.O.,) BN, J & GC, J (Contd…) the above information before the Court and request learned Judge to give time up to March, 2006. We request you to use your good office to appraise the Court and to protect Bank’s interest’. Thi l tt l th t th SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE This letter merely says that once the vacancies were cleared, the Bank was interested to consider the case. It nowhere shows any urgency to implement the order of the Court. Vacancies can be cleared after decade or two decades. Therefore, we feel that the appellant in this appeal is, prima facie, in Contempt of this Court. Issue notice to the appellant-Sri P.Gopala Krishna, Chairman, Sri Venkateswara Grameena Bank, Chittoor, as to why Contempt Proceedings be not initiated against him. He shall file counter within two weeks and shall remain present on the next date of hearing. List on 21-03-2006. ​______________ 07- 03-2006 lur SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE BN, J & SAR, J Application No.122 of 2006 BN, J & SAR, J Application No.122 of 2006 This application has been filed by SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE respondent No.3-applicant seeking extension of time and also seeking prayer that the respondents should give a set off for Rs.93,31,706/- (Rupees ninety three lakhs thirty one thousand seven hundred and six only) which according to him are the losses suffered by him. That is a matter, which will have to be gone into before taking a decision on the question whether the petitioner suffered any losses and if so, whether he is entitled to recover those losses in these proceedings. Therefore, at this stage, we cannot allow the prayer of the applicant that he should be permitted to deposit only Rs2,06,68,294/- (Rupees two crores six lakhs sixty eight thousand two hundred and ninety four only) and not Rs.3.17 crores. At this stage, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has no objection if the property is put to fresh auction, but it should not be taken as adjudication of his claim to the compensation and losses. BN, J & SAR, J (Contd…) This issue will be decided after a counter is filed to the present application. As far as the extension of time is concerned, the request of the applicant is rejected and the official liquidator is at liberty to put the property to fresh auction as the applicant has also conceded that fresh auction may be allowed. The applicant also will be entitled to participate in the fresh auction. The Earned Money Deposit (EMD) already paid by the applicant to the extent of Rs.17 lakhs, when the property was put to auction earlier, may be returned to the applicant SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE applicant. ​ ______________ 03-02-2006 lur SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE