Telangana HC Delivers Strong Message on Government Accountability
The Telangana High Court has delivered a landmark judgment that strongly criticizes the state government for what it termed a 'sense of entitlement' in approaching courts with excessive delays. In a significant ruling on Monday, the court dismissed two writ appeals filed by the state government that were delayed by 460 and 488 days respectively.
The division bench comprising Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar made it clear that government departments cannot expect special treatment when it comes to procedural timelines. The court emphasized that condonation of delay is an exception, not an anticipated benefit, especially for competent government departments equipped with adequate resources.
The Case Behind the Landmark Ruling
The appeals challenged a November 2023 judgment by a single judge that declared a 2001 land acquisition by the state government as illegal and arbitrary. The acquisition concerned plots in Hyderabad's Silicon Heights near Manikonda Jagir, intended for a 'Cyber Park' project.
The original judgment had found the acquisition violated mandatory procedural requirements. The single judge had directed the state to either consider the petitioners' request for alternative land allotment or initiate fresh acquisition proceedings for the land.
This order was challenged by the collector of Rangareddy district and the managing director of the Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation through separate appeals, both filed with substantial delays.
Court's Scathing Observations on Government Delays
The bench was particularly critical of the government's explanation for the delays, stating that the appellants had 'failed to make out a case for condonation of delay' and provided no 'even remotely satisfactory explanation' to meet the legal requirements under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
In its order, the court referenced the precedent set by the famous 'Postmaster General case' while rejecting the applications for condonation of delay. The bench emphasized that sufficient cause must demonstrate both diligence and the intention to rectify procedural shortcomings.
'The stand taken by the appellant who seeks condonation of delay cannot be borne out of privilege and a sense of entitlement,' the bench stated in its strongly worded order.
Technology Literacy Mandate for Government Officials
In a notable addition that reflects contemporary realities, the court emphasized that government functionaries must now be 'technology literate' and equipped to stay updated with court proceedings through modern means.
'We are now in 2025 where, in the light of technological advancement, competence would essentially have to include technology-literate persons who have the wherewithal to remain alive and alert to court proceedings,' the bench observed.
The court also rejected any notion that state functionaries could claim a separate period of limitation, especially when they had competent persons familiar with court procedures.
This judgment sets an important precedent for government accountability and emphasizes that all parties, including the state, must adhere to procedural timelines without expecting preferential treatment based on their status.
