Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs M.Sugantha Jayanthi on 29 April, 2021
C.M.P.NO.11486 of 2018
in Rev.Appl.No.SR46040 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:29.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
C.M.P.NO.11486 of 2018
in Rev.Appl.No.SR46040 of 2018
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary to Government,
School Education Department, Secretariat,
Chennai 9.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Salem.
4.The Additional Assistant Elementary
Educational Officer,
Salem – 1.
....Appellants / petitioners
Vs
1.M.Sugantha Jayanthi
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.NO.11486 of 2018
in Rev.Appl.No.SR46040 of 2018
2.The Secretary,
Bala Krishnavilas Aided Primary School,
No.1, Dharmalingam Street,
Linemedu, Salem 1. ..Respondents
Prayer:- Delay petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to
condone the delay of 1291 days in filing the above review petition against
the order dated 05.11.2014 in W.A.No.97 of 2012
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Munusamy
Special Government Pleader (Education)
For Respondent : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., through
Video Conferencing]
The petitioner, alleging wilful disobedience and deliberate non
compliance of the judgment dated 05.11.2014, made in W.A.No.97 of 2012,
came forward to file this Contempt Petition No.3391 of 2014. However, the
said order has not been complied with for nearly six years and belatedly
Rev.Appl.No.SR46040 of 2018, came to be filed on 19.06.2018 with a
delay of 1291 days in filing the Review Application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.NO.11486 of 2018
in Rev.Appl.No.SR46040 of 2018
2. It is relevant to extract paragraph no.10 of the affidavit filed in
support of the Civil Miscellaneous Petition:
''10. It is submitted that the learned Special
Government Pleader has opined that it is a fit case for filing
Review Application, against the orders passed by the
Hon'ble Court in W.A.No.97 of 2012. It is most humbly
submitted that there were frequent transfer of officers and
staff in the office of the Review petitioners / respondents
which has also attributed to the delay in filing the Writ
Appeal / review Applications. It is submitted that the review
applicants not able to trace out for time from 2014 to 2017
December, after trace out to time got to legal opinion from
Law officer and get approval from higher officer and
prepare to draft and got to approval from the law officer,
hence delay in long time. Subject to explain the delay in
details. The delay in filing the review application is neither
wilful nor wanton but due to above administrative reasons.
Unless the delay is condoned, the Review petitioner's
department will be put into irreparable loss and hardship. It
is further submitted that if the order of the Hon'ble Court
being implemented in the case of similarly placed persons,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.NO.11486 of 2018
in Rev.Appl.No.SR46040 of 2018
the petitioners / respondent department will face undue
hardship and will incur heavy financial loss to the
Government.''
3. There is absolutely no tenable, reasonable or plausible reasons
have been assigned for condonation of such a huge delay. It is a well settled
position of law that in the absence of any tenable or acceptable explanation,
such a huge delay cannot be condoned.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in catena of decisions has
considered the said issue and in the decision reported in 2010 [5] SCC 459
[Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited Vs. Gujarat Industrial
Development Corporation and another], has considered the scope of the
discretion of the Court in condoning the delay if sufficient cause is shown
and it is relevant to extract paragraphs No.14 and 15 of the said judgment:-
''14 We have considered the respective
submissions. The law of limitation is founded on
public policy. The legislature does not prescribe
limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the
parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.NO.11486 of 2018
in Rev.Appl.No.SR46040 of 2018
tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that
every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed
by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of
limitation prescribes a period within which legal
remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury.
At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the
power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown
for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.
15 The expression ''sufficient cause''
employed in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and
similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the
courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which
subserves the ends of justice. Although, no hard-and-
fast rule can be laid down i dealing with the
applications for condonation of delay, this Court has
justifiably advocated adoption of liberal approach in
condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter
approach where the delay is inordinate-Collector [L.A]
Vs. Katiji [1987 [2] SCC 107] ; N.Balakrishnan Vs.
M.Krishnamurthy [1998 [7] SCC 123 and Vedabai
Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2001 [9] SCC 106.''
9 In the decision reported in 2012 [5] SCC 157 [Maniben Devraj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.NO.11486 of 2018
in Rev.Appl.No.SR46040 of 2018
Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan, Mumbai], the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held in paragraph No.24 as follows:-
''24 What colour the expression ''sufficient
cause'' would get in the factual matrix of a given case
would largely depend on bona fide nature of the
explanation. It the court finds that there has been no
negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause
shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it
may condone the delay. It, on the other hand, the
explanation given by the applicant is found to be
concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting
his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of
discretion not to condone the delay.''
10 In Office of the Chief Post Master General and Others Vs.
Living Media India Limited and another reported in 2012 [2] SCALE
782, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in paragraphs No.12 and 13, has observed as
follows:-
''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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.NO.11486 of 2018
in Rev.Appl.No.SR46040 of 2018
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 bona fide, 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.
13 In our view, it is the right time to inform
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.NO.11486 of 2018
in Rev.Appl.No.SR46040 of 2018
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.''
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 1291 days in
filing the review application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.NO.11486 of 2018
in Rev.Appl.No.SR46040 of 2018
5. In the light of the reasons assigned above, C.M.P.No.11486 of
2018 is dismissed and consequently the Review Application
Sr.No.46040/2018 is rejected. No costs.
[M.S.N., J.,] [P.R.M., J]
29.04.2021
sk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.NO.11486 of 2018
in Rev.Appl.No.SR46040 of 2018
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,
and
P.RAJAMANICKAM, J.,
sk
C.M.P.NO.11486 of 2018
in Rev.Appl.No.SR46040 of 2018
29.04.2021
(1/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
