The case titled The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs. Kopparla Santhi (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2681/2024) originated from a dispute involving a writ petition filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The writ petition (W.P. No. 16019 of 2020) was initially dismissed by the High Court on July 28, 2021. Subsequently, the State of Andhra Pradesh sought to file a writ appeal (W.A. No. 969 of 2023) but faced a significant delay of 614 days in doing so.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue revolved around the condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal. The petitioners argued that the delay should be condoned based on the Supreme Court’s earlier order in M.A. No. 21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020, which allowed for the exclusion of certain periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The respondents, however, contended that even with the exclusion, there was still a delay of 317 days.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court, comprising. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, heard the arguments from both sides. The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Mr. R. Basant, along with a team of lawyers including Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar and Ms. Prerna Singh. The respondents were represented by Ms. C.K. Sucharita and Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta.
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had failed to properly consider the petitioners’ explanation for the delay. The Court noted that the High Court’s judgment did not reflect an application of mind and lacked reasoning, which is essential for judicial decisions.
Key Observations and Quotes
The Supreme Court made several important observations:
1. On the Application of Mind: “There can be no doubt that application of mind can be reflected only through reasons. In fact, it is the cursory consideration that culminated in the impugned judgment.”
2. On Compliance Under Threat: “Compliance of an order under threat cannot take away the right of a party as available to challenge the same, in law.”
3. On Delay Condonation: “Taking note of the aforesaid explanation, we are inclined to hold that petitioners have satisfactorily explained the delay, if any, in preferring appeal against the judgment in W.P. No. 16019 of 2020.”
Also Read
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated November 7, 2023, which had dismissed the writ appeal for being meritless and for failing to condone the delay. The Supreme Court restored the writ appeal to its original number and directed the High Court to consider it on its own merits, in accordance with the law.
