THE AP STATE WAKF BOARD v. SALEEMA BEGUM
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Bench: DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Andhra Pradesh judgment dated 2024-03-01. THE AP STATE WAKF BOARD v. SALEEMA BEGUM. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
APHC010255282023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3446] FRIDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO I. A. No. 3 of 2023 in/and WRIT APPEAL NO: 1137 OF 2023 Between: THE AP STATE WAKF BOARD ... APPELLANT(S) AND SALEEMA BEGUM AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(s) :Sri Mohammed Gayasuddin Counsel for Respondent No. 1 : Sri Murali Lincoln Counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 6 : Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent No. 4 & 5 : Government Pleader for Registration & Stamps The Court made the following: P C: IA. No. 3 of 2023 is an application seeking condonation of 238 days delay in preferring the present appeal against the judgment th and order, dated 17 August, 2022 passed in WP. No. 5593 of 2021. th The appeal was preferred finally on 12 May, 2023. 2.
It is stated that a copy of the order impugned was st received by the applicant on 21 November, 2022. It is further stated that on the date of receipt of the order from the Court, since there was no standing counsel for some period, the appeal could not be filed immediately thereafter. Further, the standing counsel was th appointed on 14 December, 2022 where-after the appeal came to th be preferred on 12 May, 2023. 3. On a perusal of the averments made in the application, th even if one were to accept the explanation that upto 14 December, 2022 the appeal could not be filed on account of non availability of a standing counsel, yet, there is no satisfactory explanation rendered th to explain the delay from 14 December, 2022 onwards till the th actual filing of the present appeal on 12 May, 2023.
The explanation rendered by learned counsel for the applicant that there was too much of work for the standing counsel on account of which the delay occurred, to us, does not seem to be a satisfactory explanation for purposes of condoning the delay in preferring the present appeal. 4. IA. No. 3 of 2023 is therefore found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal also stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Vjl
Source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.