Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
The State Of Ap vs Tejpal And Others 1 And Would Submit That … on 17 March, 2026
Date of reserved for judgment : 25.02.2026
Date of pronouncement : 17.03.2026
Date of upload : 17.03.2026
APHC010176882025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3565]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
&
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
I.A.No.01/2025 IN/AND
W.A.Nos.245/2025, 249/2025 & 254/2025
AND
I.A.No.02/2025 IN/AND
W.A.Nos.411/2025, 111/2025, 128/2025, 129/2025, 130/2025,
133/2025, 162/2025, 163/2025, 164/2025, 168/2025, 169/2025, 177/2025,
178/2025, 179/2025, 181/2025, 185/2025, 186/2025, 209/2025, 230/2025,
231/2025, 232/2025, 233/2025, 236/2025, 238/2025, 239/2025, 240/2025,
241/2025, 244/2025, 246/2025, 247/2025, 248/2025, 250/2025, 255/2025,
256/2025, 266/2025, 270/2025, 271/2025, 272/2025, 273/2025, 275/2025,
276/2025, 277/2025, 280/2025, 281/2025, 284/2025, 285/2025, 286/2025,
287/2025, 288/2025, 302/2025, 304/2025, 305/2025, 306/2025, 307/2025,
308/2025, 316/2025, 317/2025, 318/2025, 319/2025, 320/2025, 322/2025,
323/2025, 325/2025, 326/2025, 332/2025, 333/2025, 334/2025, 335/2025,
338/2025, 340/2025, 345/2025, 346/2025, 349/2025, 350/2025, 351/2025,
352/2025, 353/2025, 354/2025, 355/2025, 356/2025, 357/2025, 358/2025,
359/2025, 363/2025, 366/2025, 368/2025, 369/2025, 371/2025, 372/2025,
373/2025, 374/2025, 375/2025, 376/2025, 377/2025, 379/2025, 380/2025,
383/2025, 384/2025, 385/2025, 387/2025, 389/2025, 390/2025, 391/2025,
392/2025, 394/2025, 407/2025, 409/2025, 417/2025, 418/2025, 419/2025,
421/2025, 422/2025, 423/2025, 429/2025, 434/2025, 436/2025, 437/2025,
438/2025, 439/2025, 441/2025, 442/2025, 451/2025, 452/2025, 453/2025,
454/2025, 455/2025, 456/2025, 457/2025, 458/2025, 459/2025, 460/2025,
2
461/2025, 462/2025, 463/2025, 464/2025, 465/2025, 466/2025, 467/2025,
468/2025, 469/2025, 470/2025, 471/2025, 472/2025, 474/2025, 475/2025,
476/2025, 477/2025, 478/2025, 479/2025, 480/2025, 481/2025, 491/2025,
492/2025, 493/2025, 495/2025, 497/2025, 500/2025, 501/2025, 502/2025,
503/2025, 504/2025, 505/2025, 506/2025, 507/2025, 508/2025, 509/2025,
510/2025, 511/2025, 512/2025, 513/2025, 514/2025, 526/2025, 528/2025,
529/2025, 530/2025, 531/2025, 532/2025, 533/2025, 535/2025, 545/2025,
547/2025, 548/2025, 549/2025, 550/2025, 553/2025, 554/2025, 555/2025,
556/2025, 557/2025, 558/2025, 559/2025 and 568/2025.
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order
dated 23.03.2022 passed in W.P No. 6481 of 2022 and pass
Between:
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH
MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICE,,
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GOLLAPUDI,
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
3. . THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU,
WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
4. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,
ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. DASINENI VENKATA RAMANABABU, S/o Late Venkata Chalapathi
Rao Hindu aged about 54 Years Occ.Un employee R/o H.No.196,
Mahalakshmi Nagar, Satyavathi Nagar Road, Tadepalligudem, West
Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh and others.
...RESPONDENTS
The Court made the following:
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
&
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
I.A.No.01/2025 IN/AND
W.A.Nos.245/2025, 249/2025 & 254/2025
AND
I.A.No.02/2025 IN/AND
W.A.Nos.411/2025, 111/2025, 128/2025, 129/2025, 130/2025, 133/2025,
162/2025, 163/2025, 164/2025, 168/2025, 169/2025, 177/2025, 178/2025,
179/2025, 181/2025, 185/2025, 186/2025, 209/2025, 230/2025, 231/2025,
232/2025, 233/2025, 236/2025, 238/2025, 239/2025, 240/2025, 241/2025,
244/2025, 246/2025, 247/2025, 248/2025, 250/2025, 255/2025, 256/2025,
266/2025, 270/2025, 271/2025, 272/2025, 273/2025, 275/2025, 276/2025,
277/2025, 280/2025, 281/2025, 284/2025, 285/2025, 286/2025, 287/2025,
288/2025, 302/2025, 304/2025, 305/2025, 306/2025, 307/2025, 308/2025,
316/2025, 317/2025, 318/2025, 319/2025, 320/2025, 322/2025, 323/2025,
325/2025, 326/2025, 332/2025, 333/2025, 334/2025, 335/2025, 338/2025,
340/2025, 345/2025, 346/2025, 349/2025, 350/2025, 351/2025, 352/2025,
353/2025, 354/2025, 355/2025, 356/2025, 357/2025, 358/2025, 359/2025,
363/2025, 366/2025, 368/2025, 369/2025, 371/2025, 372/2025, 373/2025,
374/2025, 375/2025, 376/2025, 377/2025, 379/2025, 380/2025, 383/2025,
384/2025, 385/2025, 387/2025, 389/2025, 390/2025, 391/2025, 392/2025,
394/2025, 407/2025, 409/2025, 417/2025, 418/2025, 419/2025, 421/2025,
422/2025, 423/2025, 429/2025, 434/2025, 436/2025, 437/2025, 438/2025,
439/2025, 441/2025, 442/2025, 451/2025, 452/2025, 453/2025, 454/2025,
455/2025, 456/2025, 457/2025, 458/2025, 459/2025, 460/2025, 461/2025,
462/2025, 463/2025, 464/2025, 465/2025, 466/2025, 467/2025, 468/2025,
469/2025, 470/2025, 471/2025, 472/2025, 474/2025, 475/2025, 476/2025,
477/2025, 478/2025, 479/2025, 480/2025, 481/2025, 491/2025, 492/2025,
493/2025, 495/2025, 497/2025, 500/2025, 501/2025, 502/2025, 503/2025,
504/2025, 505/2025, 506/2025, 507/2025, 508/2025, 509/2025, 510/2025,
511/2025, 512/2025, 513/2025, 514/2025, 526/2025, 528/2025, 529/2025,
530/2025, 531/2025, 532/2025, 533/2025, 535/2025, 545/2025, 547/2025,
548/2025, 549/2025, 550/2025, 553/2025, 554/2025, 555/2025, 556/2025,
557/2025, 558/2025, 559/2025 and 568/2025.
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)
All the writ appeals have been filed against the orders passed by the
learned single Judges of this Court on different dates in different writ petitions.
4
But, the issue involved in all the writ appeals is one and the same. In all the
writ appeals preferred by the State, there is delay in filing the writ appeals and
seeking to condone the delay, Interlocutory Applications have been filed.
2. The delay in filing each appeal extracted as herein under:
SI.No. WA.No. Delay in Days 1. 111/2025 709 2. 128/2025 683 3. 129/2025 466 4. 130/2025 689 5. 133/2025 664 6. 162/2025 495 7. 163/2025 778 8. 164/2025 686 9. 168/2025 714 10. 169/2025 756 11. 177/2025 929 12. 178/2025 714 13. 179/2025 876 14. 181/2025 919 15. 185/2025 869 16. 186/2025 672 17. 209/2025 916 18. 230/2025 747 19. 231/2025 1664 20. 232/2025 922 21. 233/2025 1560 22. 236/2025 731 23. 238/2025 1048 24. 239/2025 806 25. 240/2025 1139 26. 241/2025 1139 27. 244/2025 1139 28. 245/2025 1139 29. 246/2025 1139 30. 247/2025 806 31. 248/2025 777 32. 249/2025 883 33. 250/2025 1143 5 34. 254/2025 936 35. 255/2025 1012 36. 256/2025 729 37. 266/2025 718 38. 270/2025 701 39. 271/2025 1055 40. 272/2025 714 41. 273/2025 1142 42. 275/2025 1142 43. 276/2025 942 44. 277/2025 1142 45. 280/2025 1142 46. 281/2025 670 47. 284/2025 641 48. 285/2025 1675 49. 286/2025 736 50. 287/2025 501 51. 288/2025 966 52. 302/2025 950 53. 304/2025 671 54. 305/2025 1022 55. 306/2025 870 56. 307/2025 1300 57. 308/2025 941 58. 316/2025 704 59. 317/2025 962 60. 318/2025 1144 61. 319/2025 818 62. 320/2025 935 63. 322/2025 959 64. 323/2025 783 65. 325/2025 943 66. 326/2025 1144 67. 332/2025 810 68. 333/2025 914 69. 334/2025 743 70. 335/2025 1150 71. 338/2025 1150 72. 340/2025 693 73. 345/2025 1150 74. 346/2025 735 75. 349/2025 733 76. 350/2025 1150 6 77. 351/2025 750 78. 352/2025 656 79. 353/2025 662 80. 354/2025 739 81. 355/2025 597 82. 356/2025 1150 83. 357/2025 719 84. 358/2025 732 85. 359/2025 735 86. 363/2025 748 87. 366/2025 691 88. 368/2025 502 89. 369/2025 740 90. 371/2025 720 91. 372/2025 726 92. 373/2025 725 93. 374/2025 739 94. 375/2025 670 95. 376/2025 555 96. 377/2025 1150 97. 379/2025 739 98. 380/2025 731 99. 383/2025 790 100. 384/2025 1154 101. 385/2025 803 102. 387/2025 726 103. 389/2025 738 104. 390/2025 697 105. 391/2025 536 106. 392/2025 783 107. 394/2025 710 108. 407/2025 1023 109. 409/2025 1093 110. 411/2025 1078 111. 417/2025 831 112. 418/2025 1153 113. 419/2025 936 114. 421/2025 600 115. 422/2025 914 116. 423/2025 1164 117. 429/2025 1058 118. 434/2025 555 119. 436/2025 1190 7 120. 437/2025 1164 121. 438/2025 1164 122. 439/2025 1260 123. 441/2025 1161 124. 442/2025 1050 125. 451/2025 1161 126. 452/2025 594 127. 453/2025 1161 128. 454/2025 1161 129. 455/2025 1082 130. 456/2025 921 131. 457/2025 1099 132. 458/2025 576 133. 459/2025 1167 134. 460/2025 1093 135. 461/2025 668 136. 462/2025 1167 137. 463/2025 954 138. 464/2025 910 139. 465/2025 1099 140. 466/2025 1176 141. 467/2025 1164 142. 468/2025 1164 143. 469/2025 1093 144. 470/2025 599 145. 471/2025 740 146. 472/2025 1055 147. 474/2025 1085 148. 475/2025 750 149. 476/2025 748 150. 477/2025 613 151. 478/2025 1750 152. 479/2025 1161 153. 480/2025 748 154. 481/2025 747 155. 491/2025 1168 156. 492/2025 1966 157. 493/2025 1179 158. 495/2025 1072 159. 497/2025 1343 160. 500/2025 1179 161. 501/2025 1179 162. 502/2025 497 8 163. 503/2025 1074 164. 504/2025 1205 165. 505/2025 2362 166. 506/2025 619 167. 507/2025 1179 168. 508/2025 908 169. 509/2025 1179 170. 510/2025 1091 171. 511/2025 735 172. 512/2025 850 173. 513/2025 1176 174. 514/2025 879 175. 526/2025 724 176. 528/2025 603 177. 529/2025 1066 178. 530/2025 1178 179. 531/2025 1171 180. 532/2025 764 181. 533/2025 613 182. 535/2025 1091 183. 545/2025 1555 184. 547/2025 1236 185. 548/2025 1788 186. 549/2025 1093 187. 550/2025 1873 188. 553/2025 418 189. 554/2025 1096 190. 555/2025 1185 191. 556/2025 1005 192. 557/2025 1170 193. 558/2025 337 194. 559/2025 1101 195. 568/2025 763
3. The parties in these Appeals will be referred to as they are
arrayed in the Writ Petitions for convenience.
4. The issue involved in these cases is pertaining to the recruitment
of 2,324 posts of Multi Purpose Health Assistants (Male) [for short “MPHAs
9
(Male)”] in the combined State of Andhra Pradesh which were notified on
20.07.2002. After several rounds of litigation from erstwhile Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad to the Hon‟ble Apex Court, this issue
had not attained finality.
5. On 20.07.2002, the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh
issued a notification for recruitment of 2,324 posts of MPHAs (Male) in all the
districts in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh along with some other
paramedical posts. As per the said notification, the prescribed qualification is a
pass in S.S.C. with a certificate in training course in MPHA (Male) from an
institute recognized by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh. With respect
to the said notification, some of the candidates approached the erstwhile
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.6856 of 2002
and batch. The said O.As., were dismissed by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad on 30.07.2002.
6. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.15107 of 2002 and batch of writ
petitions were filed. A Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad, by order, dated 11.09.2003, disposed of the writ
petitions directing the State Government to prepare the select list of
candidates in accordance with the Rules, who possessed S.S.C. and Diploma
certificates either from the Government institutions or from four (04) private
institutions and issue appointment orders, within a period of four (04) weeks,
duly terminating the services of those candidates, who were appointed by
virtue of the orders, dated 18.04.2003 passed by the High Court.
10
7. The order, dated 11.09.2003 in W.P.No.15107 of 2002 and batch
were challenged before the Hon‟ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.1925-44/2004.
The Hon‟ble Apex Court was pleased to issue interim order, dated 06.02.2004
not to make any fresh appointments in pursuance of the judgment of the High
Court in W.P.No.15107 of 2002 and batch and also directed not to disturb the
appointments which have already been made. Thereafter, in the Interlocutory
Application filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the said SLP, the
Hon‟ble Apex Court by order, dated 07.08.2006 was pleased to vacate the
orders granting stay on 06.02.2004 and permitted the State Government to fill
up the vacancies from the selected candidates subject to the outcome of
Special Leave Petitions.
8. At that stage, the Hon‟ble Apex Court recorded the statement of
learned Additional Solicitor General that the candidates who were already
appointed shall not be reverted. Pursuant to the orders of the Hon‟ble Apex
Court, dated 07.08.2006, the State Government had issued G.O.Rt.No.1234,
dated 15.09.2006 for filling up of the posts of MPHAs (Male). Though the
Government is permitted to fill up the posts from the merit list of 2002 written
examination, it appears appellants were made appointments contrary to the
merit list. The Hon‟ble Apex Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petitions
filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh by judgment, dated 09.08.2011
and as such the orders passed by the Division Bench, dated 11.09.2003 in
W.P.No.15107 of 2002 and batch were confirmed.
11
9. In view of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Special
Leave Petitions, the persons, who were appointed in terms of
G.O.Rt.No.1234, dated 15.09.2006 as also by virtue of interim orders passed
by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad based on
Intermediate as educational qualification were terminated vide G.O.Rt.No.273,
dated 16.02.2012. In compliance of the orders in W.P.No.15107 of 2002 and
batch, a fresh list was drawn.
10. The candidates whose services were terminated by virtue of the
G.O.Rt.No.273, dated 16.02.2012, made representations to the Government
of Andhra Pradesh. The State Government appointed a committee consisting
a group of Ministers to take action on the said representations. As per the
advice of the committee of the group of Ministers, the State Government
issued G.O.Rt.No.1207, dated 09.10.2013 to take back all the 1,200 MPHAs
(Male).
11. Aggrieved by the action of the Government in issuing
G.O.Rt.No.1207, dated 09.10.2013, some of the candidates filed O.A.No.7441
of 2013 and batch before the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal at Hyderabad. The erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal
at Hyderabad by order, dated 28.11.2013 has dismissed the said
O.A.No.7441 of 2013 and batch. Against the same, W.P.No.38060 of 2013
and batch filed before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad. At initial stage, the High Court was pleased to grant stay of
appointments made pursuant to G.O.Rt.No.1207, dated 09.10.2013.
12
Thereafter, the High Court was pleased to issue directions on 15.09.2015 in
W.P.M.P.No.1015 of 2014 directing the respondent authorities therein to make
efforts to implement the judgment of the High Court, dated 09.11.2003 in
W.P.No.15107 of 2002 and batch. Pursuant to the said order, the Government
of Andhra Pradesh issued Memo No.7342/G2/2015-8, dated 24.05.2016
directing the Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad to take necessary action as per the orders of High Court, dated
15.09.2015 in W.P.No.38060 of 2013 and batch and to appoint the candidates
who are remained in the common seniority list (SSC and Inter) prepared as
per the orders of the High Court/Hon‟ble Apex Court after filling up 2,324 posts
of MPHAs (Male) and having merit over the individuals appointed through
G.O.Rt.No.1207, HM&FW Department, dated 09.10.2013 at first instance by
terminating the individuals if necessary, those were appointed vide
G.O.Rt.No.1207, dated 09.10.2013 and having lesser merit among the
individuals, who appointed so and thereafter keeping in view the observation
of the High Court and take action to accommodate such terminated individuals
as per their merit subject to availability of vacancies of MPHAs (M) with the
prior permission of the Government only after completion of above task.
12. All the facts stated above are undisputed.
13. At that stage, several writ petitions in W.P.No.2571 of 2023 and
batch are filed seeking direction to the respondents therein to strictly adhere to
the orders of the High Court, dated 15.09.2015 in W.P.No.38060 of 2013 and
batch and also Memo issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Memo
13
No.7342/G2/2015-8, dated 24.05.2016 and appoint them as Multi Purpose
Health Assistants (Male). The said W.P.No.2571 of 2023 and batch of writ
petitions were disposed of on different dates with the following directions:
(i) The respondents shall consider the cases of the writ petitioners for
appointment as MPHAs within a period of four (04) weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of the order, in terms of Memo No.7342/G2/2015-8,
dated 24.05.2016 based on their merit, if any candidate less meritorious
than the writ petitioners are appointed;
(ii) If any of the writ petitioners have not submitted the relevant
certificates/documents, they should be called upon to submit the same
by granting reasonable time of not less than four (04) weeks;
(iii) In the event of any genuine objection for considering the case of any
of the writ petitioners, they shall be notified by the same by issuing
appropriate notice/communication and afforded an opportunity before
taking further action in the matter.
14. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned single Judges in
various writ petitions W.P.No.2571 of 2023 and batch on different dates, the
State preferred the present writ appeals. All these appeals are heard together
with the consent of both sides as common issue involved.
15. It is also an admitted fact that there is delay in filing the writ
appeals. At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel Sri B. Adinarayana Rao,
appearing for the respondents, has raised a preliminary objection and sought
to hear the delay condonation petitions at first and requested to decide the
same. Accordingly, the delay condonation petitions in all the appeals are
taken for consideration.
14
16. Mr. E. Samba Siva Pratap, learned Additional Advocate General,
appearing for the appellants/State Government, would submit that subsequent
to the disposal of the writ petitions by the learned single Judges of this Court
on different dates, the High Court of Telangana passed final orders in
W.P.No.38060 of 2013 and batch, dated 29.11.2024, setting aside the
G.O.Rt.No.1207, HM&FW Department, dated 09.10.2013. He would submit
that pursuant to the orders passed in W.P.No.38060 of 2013 and batch, dated
29.11.2024 by the High Court of Telangana, the appellants herein have
terminated all the appointments issued through G.O.Rt.No.1207, HM&FW
Department, dated 09.10.2013. He would submit that as the orders passed in
W.P.No.2571 of 2023 are pursuant to the interim orders, dated 15.09.2015
passed in W.P.No.38060 of 2013 and since the final orders were passed in
W.P.No.38060 of 2013 by the High Court of Telangana, the interim orders
losses its significances. He further contends that in the light of the order, dated
29.11.2024 in W.P.No.38060 of 2013 passed by the High Court of Telangana,
the orders passed in all the writ petitions which were under challenge in the
present writ appeals have to be set aside.
17. The learned Additional Advocate General advanced his
arguments to substantiate the delay caused in filing the writ appeals is that in
view of the order, dated 29.11.2024 in W.P.No.38060 of 2013 passed by the
High Court of Telangana, the State has decided to file writ appeals against the
orders passed by the learned single Judges of this Court in different writ
petitions on different dates, there is delay in filing the writ appeals and the
15
delay is neither willful nor wanton. Accordingly, he prayed to condone the
delay in filing the writ appeals, otherwise, he would submit that, the appellants
will be put to irreparable loss and hardships.
18. On the other hand, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior
Counsel, appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed to condone the
delay in filing the writ appeals in the absence of any sufficient cause to
condone the delay. He would submit that the appellants failed to show any
sufficient cause to condone the delay and the reasons stated in the
accompanying affidavits filed along with the delay petitions are very vague
and no proper reasons are stated. Accordingly, he sought to dismiss the delay
condonation petitions.
19. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has
relied on the latest judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Delhi Development
Authority vs. Tejpal and others 1 and would submit that subsequent to
overruling of a judgment cannot be a sufficient cause to condone the delay.
The relevant portions of the said judgment are extracted herein under:
28. We find adequate support to our afore-stated reason in Tilokchand &
Motichand v. H.B. Munishi2, in which a 5-Judge Bench of this Court
had the occasion to consider the question of condonation of delay on the
basis of subsequent charge of law. While giving the majority opinion,
Hidayatullah, CJ. held:
“[…] Everybody is presumed to know the law. It was his duty to
have brought the matter before this Court for consideration. In any event,
having set the machinery of law in motion he cannot abandon it to1
(2024) 5 SCR
2
(1969) 1 SCC 110
16resume it after a number of years, because another person more
adventurous than he in his turn got the statue declared
unconstitutional, and got a favourable decision. If I were to hold
otherwise, then the decision of the High Court in any case once
adjudicated upon and acquiesced in, may be questioned in a fresh
litigation revived only with the argument that the correct position
was not known to the petitioner at the time when he abandoned his
own litigation. […]”
[emphasis supplied]
29. Finally, the fourth reason why subsequent overruling of a judgment
cannot be a sufficient cause is because when a case is overruled, it is
only its binding nature as a precedent that is taken away and the lis
between the parties is still deemed to have been settled by the overruled
case. It is a settled principle of law that even an erroneous decision
operates as res judicata between the parties. Hence, when Manoharlal
(supra) overruled Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and Sree
Balaji Nagar Residential Association (supra) as well as all other cases
relying on them, it only overruled their precedential value, and did not
reopen the lis between the parties. The mere fact that the impugned
orders in the present case were overruled by Manoharlal (supra) would
not, therefore, be a sufficient ground to argue that the cases should be
reopened.
32. To sum up, we hold that subsequent change of law will not be
attracted unless a case is pending before the competent court awaiting
its final adjudication. To say it differently, if a case has already been
decided, it cannot be re-opened and re-decided solely on the basis of a
new interpretation given to law.
20. The learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on the
latest judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Shivamma (died) by LRs. Vs.
Karnataka Housing Board and others3. The relevant portions of the said
judgment are extracted herein under:
3
2025 INSC 1104
17
261. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the High Court
deserves to be set aside. Before we proceed to close this judgment, we
deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy
and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay,
and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that
delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a
proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is
able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all
throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But
courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate
the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars
of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude.
262. The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous
attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra
cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority. They
should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The
constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a
private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual
litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are
frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend,
and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate
delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult
to the injury, more particularly in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC,
wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law.
263. Limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a sweeping scope for the
lis to attain for finality. More than the importance of judicial time, what
worries us is the plight of a litigant with limited means, who is to contest
against an enormous State, and its elaborate and never-exhausting
paraphernalia. Such litigations deserve to be disposed of at the very
threshold, because, say if a party litigating against the State, for whatever
reason, is unable to contest the condonation of delay in appeal, unlike the
present case, it reopens the lis for another round of litigation, and leaves
such litigant listless yet again. As courts of conscience, it is our obligation
that we assure that a litigant is not sent from pillar to post to seek justice.
18
264. No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much
less be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law.
21. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to
the latest order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in State of Odisha and others vs.
Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School4 wherein the Hon‟ble
Apex Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed with a delay of 123
days. The relevant portions are extracted herein under:
20. We have found the State of Odisha to be utterly lethargic, tardy and
indolent not only before the High Court but also before this Court.
Notwithstanding that its appeal was dismissed as time-barred by the High
Court, this Court has been approached by the State of Odisha four months
after expiry of the period of limitation.
21. Condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is entirely
the discretion of the Court whether or not to condone delay. Despite all the
latitude that is shown to a “State”, we are of the clear opinion that the cause
sought to be shown here by the State of Odisha is not an explanation but a
lame excuse. No case for exercise of discretion has been set up.
22. The applications for condonation of delay in filing the special leave petition
and condonation of delay in re-filing the same, thus, stand rejected, with the
result that the special leave petition stands dismissed as time-barred.
22. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either
side and upon perusing material available on record, we have to consider
whether the reasons stated in the affidavits filed by the petitioners for the
delay caused in filing the writ appeals would establish “sufficient cause” for
condonation of such a huge delay or not in the light of the judgments of the
Hon‟ble Apex Court as stated supra.
4
2026 INSC 148
19
23. In view of the above submissions made on either side, it is
relevant to look into the averments made in the affidavits filed by the
petitioners/appellants along with the delay condonation petitions as extracted
herein under:
“6. It is necessary to submit here that subsequent to the disposal
of the above WP No.2571/2023, the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana
passed Final Orders in WP No.38060/2013 on 29.11.2024 setting aside
G.O.Rt.No.1207 HM&FW dept. dated 07.10.213.
7. It is submitted that in pursuant to the orders passed in WP
No.38060/2013 dated 29.11.2024, the Appellants herein have
terminated all the appointments issued through G.O.Rt.No.1207
HM&FW dept. dated 07.10.213. As the orders passed in WP
No.2571/2023 are pursuant to the interim orders dated 15.09.2015
passed in WP No.38060/2023 and since the final orders were passed in
the above WP No.38060/2013, the interim order loses its significance.
Therefore, the order passed in W.P.No.2571 of 2023, dated 03.02.2023
must be set aside in view of the final order passed in W.P.No.38060 of
2013 dated 29.11.2024. However, there is delay in filing this WA due to
the above reasons.
8.Hence challenging the said orders passed in WP No.2571/2023
dated 20.03.2023, the appellants herein are filing the present WA.
However there is a delay of 709 days in filing the present appeal. The
above said delay in filing the Writ Appeal is only for the reasons stated
above and is neither willful nor wanton. If this Hon‟ble Court does not
condone the delay in filing the present Writ Appeal, the appellants
herein will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.
9. It is therefore prayed that this Hon‟ble High Court may be
pleased to condone the delay of 709 days in filing the Writ Appeal in the
interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this
case”.
20
24. On careful perusal of the averments of the affidavits extracted
herein above, it is clear that the appellants herein has decided to file writ
appeals against the orders passed by the learned single Judges of this Court
in several writ petitions consequent to the order, dated 29.11.2024 in
W.P.No.38060 of 2013 passed by the High Court of Telangana.
25. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Delhi Development Authority‘s case (1
supra), it was held that subsequent change of law will not be attracted unless
a case is pending before the competent Court awaiting its final adjudication.
The Hon‟ble Apex Court clarified that if a case has already been decided, it
cannot be re-opened and re-decided solely on the basis of a new
interpretation given to that law. Accordingly, it was held that subsequent
overruling of a judgment cannot be a sufficient cause when a case is
overruled, it is only its binding nature as a precedent that is taken away and
the lis between the parties is still deemed to have been settled by the
overruled case.
26. In the light of the finding of the Hon‟ble Apex Court on this aspect,
we do not find any substance in the contentions of the learned Additional
Advocate General that the State is decided to file these writ appeals as per
the order of the High Court of Telangana in W.P.No.38060 of 2013, dated
29.11.2024. Subsequent order of the Telangana High Court, dated
29.11.2024 in W.P.No.38060 of 2013 and batch would not be a ground to file
appeals against the orders in several writ petitions which were disposed of by
21
this High Court with certain directions. In our considered view, it would not
constitute the “sufficient cause”.
27. Besides this, the appellants should state valid legal grounds
seeking to condone the abnormal delay in filing the writ appeals.
28. In the case of Office of Chief Post Master General and others
vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another5 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while
dealing with a petition filed for condonation of delay of 427 days after
considering various decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, observed as
extracted hereunder:
12. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or
conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of
limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in
this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation
when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with
court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation,
we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically
merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party
before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of
condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate
inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to
advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and
circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier
decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited
bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in
view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of
limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
5
2012 LawSuit (SC) 124
22
13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their
agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and
acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is
no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for
several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in
the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to
ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment.
Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an
anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone
under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.
Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the
Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to
us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent
reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals
are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
29. In another judgment, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India while
dealing with an application to condone the delay of 663 days came down
heavily, while dismissing the said application in The State of Madhya
Pradesh and others vs. Bherulal6 as extracted hereunder:
6. We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being adopted in
what we have categorized earlier as “certificate cases”. The object appears
to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a
quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the
highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and
save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is
followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a
practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of
coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government
suffers losses, it is time when the concerned officer responsible for the
same bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any6
2020 SCC OnLine SC 849
23action is taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is
presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making
submissions, straight away counsels appear to address on merits without
referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we
pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of
limitation.
7. We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all
matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government
or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time
which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers
responsible.
8. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the
application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on
the petitioner- State of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be
deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The
amount be deposited in four weeks. The amount be recovered from the
officers responsible for the delay in filing the special leave petition and a
certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within
the said period of time.
30. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Postmaster General
and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another7 wherein it is held as
hereunder:
“28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of
delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of
bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial
justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the
Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim
on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic
methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the7
1992 (3) SCC 563
24modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation
undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their
agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and
acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is
no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for
several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in
the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to
ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment.
Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an
anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters
everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a
few.”
31. The Hon‟ble Apex Court as far back in 1962 in the case of
Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd8 has emphasized
that even after sufficient cause has been shown by a party for not filing an
appeal within time, the said party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as
excusing the delay is the discretionary jurisdiction vested with the court. The
court, despite establishment of a „sufficient cause‟ for various reasons, may
refuse to condone the delay depending upon the bona fides of the party.
32. In Maqbul Ahmad and Ors. vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh
and Ors. 9 , the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that the court cannot grant an
exemption from limitation on equitable consideration or on the ground of
hardship. The court has time and again repeated that when mandatory
provision is not complied with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily and
8
AIR 1962 SC 361
9
AIR 1935 PC 85
25
convincingly explained, it ought not to condone the delay on sympathetic
grounds alone.
33. It has also been settled vide State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs.
Ashok Kumar Chokhani & Ors., 10 that the merits of the case cannot be
considered while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in filing
the appeal.
34. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,11
this Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised
judiciously based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The
expression „sufficient cause‟ as occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act
cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is writ
large. It was also observed that even though limitation may harshly affect
rights of the parties but it has to be applied with all its rigour as prescribed
under the statute as the courts have no choice but to apply the law as it
stands and they have no power to condone the delay on equitable grounds.
35. It would be beneficial to quote paragraph 12 of the aforesaid
decision which clinches the issue of the manner in which equilibrium has to be
maintained between adopting liberal approach and in implementing the statute
as it stands. Paragraph 12 reads as under:
“12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a
particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so10
AIR 2009 SC 1927
11
(2013) 14 SCC 81
26prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on
equitable grounds. “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an
evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it
considers a distress resulting from its operation.” The statutory provision
may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has
no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim
dura lex sed lex which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands
attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that,
“inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a
statute.”
36. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with an
application to condone the delay of 916 days caused in preferring an appeal in
case of University of Delhi vs. Union of India (UOI) and others12 held as
hereunder:
“20. From a consideration of the view taken by this Court through the
decisions cited supra the position is clear that, by and large, a liberal
approach is to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay. The
consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of
the party namely the Government or the public bodies so as to apply a
different yardstick but the ultimate consideration should be to render even
handed justice to the parties. Even in such case the condonation of long
delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or the adverse
consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. In that
background while considering condonation of delay, the routine
explanation would not be enough but it should be in the nature of indicating
“sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of
each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on
the fact situation. In the case of Katiji (Supra) the entire conspectus relating
to condonation of delay has been kept in focus. However, what cannot also
be lost sight is that the consideration therein was in the background of
dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay in a case where12
2020(1) ALT 230
27there was delay of four days pitted against the consideration that was
required to be made on merits regarding the upward revision of
compensation amounting to 800 per cent.
21. As against the same, the delay in the instant facts in filing the LPA is
916 days and as such the consideration to condone can be made only if
there is reasonable explanation and the condonation cannot be merely
because the appellant is public body. The entire explanation noticed
above, depicts the casual approach unmindful of the law of limitation
despite being aware of the position of law.”
37. In Union of India and Another Vs. Jahangir Byramji
Jeejeebhoy (D) through His Lrs..13 Hon‟ble Apex Court has while referring to
the cases of locus classicus like Postmaster General v. Living Media India
Limited.14, vide para 30 and Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy [cited 4 supra], vide para 33, finally held that delay should not be
excused as a matter /of generosity and rendering substantial justice is not to
cause prejudice to the opposite party and the parties seeking delay
condonation have to prove that they are reasonably diligent in prosecuting the
matter and it is the vital test for condoning the delay.
38. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in
Delhi Development Authority‘s case (1supra) and for the reasons stated
above, in our considered view, the petitioners failed to establish “sufficient
cause” for condonation of such huge delay. Thus, this Court is inclined to
dismiss all the Interlocutory Applications filed along with W.A.No.111 of 2025
and batch.
13
2024 SCC Online SC 489
14
(2012) 3 SCC 563
28
39. Accordingly, I.A.No.01/2025 IN/AND W.A.Nos.245/2025,
249/2025 and 254/2025 AND I.A.No.02/2025 IN/AND W.A.Nos.411/2025,
111/2025, 128/2025, 129/2025, 130/2025, 133/2025, 162/2025, 163/2025,
164/2025, 168/2025, 169/2025, 177/2025, 178/2025, 179/2025, 181/2025,
185/2025, 186/2025, 209/2025, 230/2025, 231/2025, 232/2025, 233/2025,
236/2025, 238/2025, 239/2025, 240/2025, 241/2025, 244/2025, 246/2025,
247/2025, 248/2025, 250/2025, 255/2025, 256/2025, 266/2025, 270/2025,
271/2025, 272/2025, 273/2025, 275/2025, 276/2025, 277/2025, 280/2025,
281/2025, 284/2025, 285/2025, 286/2025, 287/2025, 288/2025, 302/2025,
304/2025, 305/2025, 306/2025, 307/2025, 308/2025, 316/2025, 317/2025,
318/2025, 319/2025, 320/2025, 322/2025, 323/2025, 325/2025, 326/2025,
332/2025, 333/2025, 334/2025, 335/2025, 338/2025, 340/2025, 345/2025,
346/2025, 349/2025, 350/2025, 351/2025, 352/2025, 353/2025, 354/2025,
355/2025, 356/2025, 357/2025, 358/2025, 359/2025, 363/2025, 366/2025,
368/2025, 369/2025, 371/2025, 372/2025, 373/2025, 374/2025, 375/2025,
376/2025, 377/2025, 379/2025, 380/2025, 383/2025, 384/2025, 385/2025,
387/2025, 389/2025, 390/2025, 391/2025, 392/2025, 394/2025, 407/2025,
409/2025, 417/2025, 418/2025, 419/2025, 421/2025, 422/2025, 423/2025,
429/2025, 434/2025, 436/2025, 437/2025, 438/2025, 439/2025, 441/2025,
442/2025, 451/2025, 452/2025, 453/2025, 454/2025, 455/2025, 456/2025,
457/2025, 458/2025, 459/2025, 460/2025, 461/2025, 462/2025, 463/2025,
464/2025, 465/2025, 466/2025, 467/2025, 468/2025, 469/2025, 470/2025,
471/2025, 472/2025, 474/2025, 475/2025, 476/2025, 477/2025, 478/2025,
479/2025, 480/2025, 481/2025, 491/2025, 492/2025, 493/2025, 495/2025,
29
497/2025, 500/2025, 501/2025, 502/2025, 503/2025, 504/2025, 505/2025,
506/2025, 507/2025, 508/2025, 509/2025, 510/2025, 511/2025, 512/2025,
513/2025, 514/2025, 526/2025, 528/2025, 529/2025, 530/2025, 531/2025,
532/2025, 533/2025, 535/2025, 545/2025, 547/2025, 548/2025, 549/2025,
550/2025, 553/2025, 554/2025, 555/2025, 556/2025, 557/2025, 558/2025,
559/2025 and 568/2025 are hereby dismissed.
40. In view of the dismissal of condonation delay applications, the
W.A.Nos.411/2025, 111/2025, 128/2025, 129/2025, 130/2025, 133/2025,
162/2025, 163/2025, 164/2025, 168/2025, 169/2025, 177/2025, 178/2025,
179/2025, 181/2025, 185/2025, 186/2025, 209/2025, 230/2025, 231/2025,
232/2025, 233/2025, 236/2025, 238/2025, 239/2025, 240/2025, 241/2025,
244/2025, 245/2025, 246/2025, 247/2025, 248/2025, 249/2025, 250/2025,
254/2025, 255/2025, 256/2025, 266/2025, 270/2025, 271/2025, 272/2025,
273/2025, 275/2025, 276/2025, 277/2025, 280/2025, 281/2025, 284/2025,
285/2025, 286/2025, 287/2025, 288/2025, 302/2025, 304/2025, 305/2025,
306/2025, 307/2025, 308/2025, 316/2025, 317/2025, 318/2025, 319/2025,
320/2025, 322/2025, 323/2025, 325/2025, 326/2025, 332/2025, 333/2025,
334/2025, 335/2025, 338/2025, 340/2025, 345/2025, 346/2025, 349/2025,
350/2025, 351/2025, 352/2025, 353/2025, 354/2025, 355/2025, 356/2025,
357/2025, 358/2025, 359/2025, 363/2025, 366/2025, 368/2025, 369/2025,
371/2025, 372/2025, 373/2025, 374/2025, 375/2025, 376/2025, 377/2025,
379/2025, 380/2025, 383/2025, 384/2025, 385/2025, 387/2025, 389/2025,
390/2025, 391/2025, 392/2025, 394/2025, 407/2025, 409/2025, 417/2025,
30
418/2025, 419/2025, 421/2025, 422/2025, 423/2025, 429/2025, 434/2025,
436/2025, 437/2025, 438/2025, 439/2025, 441/2025, 442/2025, 451/2025,
452/2025, 453/2025, 454/2025, 455/2025, 456/2025, 457/2025, 458/2025,
459/2025, 460/2025, 461/2025, 462/2025, 463/2025, 464/2025, 465/2025,
466/2025, 467/2025, 468/2025, 469/2025, 470/2025, 471/2025, 472/2025,
474/2025, 475/2025, 476/2025, 477/2025, 478/2025, 479/2025, 480/2025,
481/2025, 491/2025, 492/2025, 493/2025, 495/2025, 497/2025, 500/2025,
501/2025, 502/2025, 503/2025, 504/2025, 505/2025, 506/2025, 507/2025,
508/2025, 509/2025, 510/2025, 511/2025, 512/2025, 513/2025, 514/2025,
526/2025, 528/2025, 529/2025, 530/2025, 531/2025, 532/2025, 533/2025,
535/2025, 545/2025, 547/2025, 548/2025, 549/2025, 550/2025, 553/2025,
554/2025, 555/2025, 556/2025, 557/2025, 558/2025, 559/2025 and 568/2025
shall stand dismissed.
41. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
____________________________
JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Dated: 17.03.2026
PGR
31
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
&
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
I.A.No.01/2025 IN/AND
W.A.Nos.245/2025, 249/2025 & 254/2025
AND
I.A.No.02/2025 IN/AND
W.A.Nos.411/2025, 111/2025, 128/2025, 129/2025, 130/2025, 133/2025, 162/2025,
163/2025, 164/2025, 168/2025, 169/2025, 177/2025, 178/2025, 179/2025, 181/2025,
185/2025, 186/2025, 209/2025, 230/2025, 231/2025, 232/2025, 233/2025, 236/2025,
238/2025, 239/2025, 240/2025, 241/2025, 244/2025, 246/2025, 247/2025, 248/2025,
250/2025, 255/2025, 256/2025, 266/2025, 270/2025, 271/2025, 272/2025, 273/2025,
275/2025, 276/2025, 277/2025, 280/2025, 281/2025, 284/2025, 285/2025, 286/2025,
287/2025, 288/2025, 302/2025, 304/2025, 305/2025, 306/2025, 307/2025, 308/2025,
316/2025, 317/2025, 318/2025, 319/2025, 320/2025, 322/2025, 323/2025, 325/2025,
326/2025, 332/2025, 333/2025, 334/2025, 335/2025, 338/2025, 340/2025, 345/2025,
346/2025, 349/2025, 350/2025, 351/2025, 352/2025, 353/2025, 354/2025, 355/2025,
356/2025, 357/2025, 358/2025, 359/2025, 363/2025, 366/2025, 368/2025, 369/2025,
371/2025, 372/2025, 373/2025, 374/2025, 375/2025, 376/2025, 377/2025, 379/2025,
380/2025, 383/2025, 384/2025, 385/2025, 387/2025, 389/2025, 390/2025, 391/2025,
392/2025, 394/2025, 407/2025, 409/2025, 417/2025, 418/2025, 419/2025, 421/2025,
422/2025, 423/2025, 429/2025, 434/2025, 436/2025, 437/2025, 438/2025, 439/2025,
441/2025, 442/2025, 451/2025, 452/2025, 453/2025, 454/2025, 455/2025, 456/2025,
457/2025, 458/2025, 459/2025, 460/2025, 461/2025, 462/2025, 463/2025, 464/2025,
465/2025, 466/2025, 467/2025, 468/2025, 469/2025, 470/2025, 471/2025, 472/2025,
474/2025, 475/2025, 476/2025, 477/2025, 478/2025, 479/2025, 480/2025, 481/2025,
491/2025, 492/2025, 493/2025, 495/2025, 497/2025, 500/2025, 501/2025, 502/2025,
503/2025, 504/2025, 505/2025, 506/2025, 507/2025, 508/2025, 509/2025, 510/2025,
511/2025, 512/2025, 513/2025, 514/2025, 526/2025, 528/2025, 529/2025, 530/2025,
531/2025, 532/2025, 533/2025, 535/2025, 545/2025, 547/2025, 548/2025, 549/2025,
550/2025, 553/2025, 554/2025, 555/2025, 556/2025, 557/2025, 558/2025, 559/2025 and
568/2025
Dt.17.03.2026
PGR