Madras High Court
M.Mohamed Yacob vs Deputy Commissioner Of Police ... on 1 February, 2021
W.A.No.3375 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.No.3375 of 2019
M.Mohamed Yacob ... Appellant
vs
1.Deputy Commissioner of Police (Admn.),
Office of the Director General of Police,
Post Box No.60.
2.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Madras – 4.
3.Tamil Nadu Government Department,
by its Secretary,
Home Department, Fort St.George,
Madras – 9. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
of this Court dated 04.03.2016 passed in M.P.No.1/2015 in W.P.No.27657 of
2006 (T) (O.A.No.5133 of 1996)
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3375 of 2019
For Appellant : Mr.O.R.Abul Kalaam
For Respondents : Mrs.A.Srijayanthi
Special Government Pleader
*****
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBBIAH, J]
This matter is heard through Video Conference.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.03.2016 passed in
M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.27657 of 2006 dismissing the petition filed by
appellant seeking condonation of delay of 2027 days in filing the petition for
restoration.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Police Department, appellant has
applied for the post of Police Constable on 30.05.1985. Appellant had passed in all
the tests including medical examination and he was awaiting for the appointment
order. While so, suddenly, the appellant's wife died. To the shock and surprise of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3375 of 2019
appellant, a criminal case was registered against him alleging that he tortured his
wife and he accelerated her death. After full fledged trial, the trial Court, under
judgment dated 25.04.1988, acquitted appellant by giving benefit of doubt.
However, appellant's name was not considered for appointment owing to his
involvement in the criminal case and his name was rejected on 03.03.1990.
Challenging the same, appellant preferred a Writ Petition before this Court. The
said Writ Petition was dismissed for default by order dated 24.07.2008. Thereafter,
appellant filed a petition seeking restoration of the Writ Petition. Appellant has
also filed a petition in M.P.No.1/2015 in W.P.No.27657 of 2006 seeking
condondation of delay of 2027 days in filing the restoration petition. This Court,
under order dated 04.03.2016, dismissed such petition. Aggrieved, appellant has
filed the present Writ Appeal.
4. The main submission of learned counsel for appellant is that when the
Writ Petition was listed on 24.07.2008, the name of one R.Parthasarathy was
printed as counsel for appellant and his name was not printed. Hence, he was
unaware of listing of the case on that day and he has not attended the Court. Since
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3375 of 2019
there was no representation, this Court has dismissed the Writ Petition for default.
Learned counsel submits that his absence on that day was neither willful nor
wanton. He came to know about the dismissal of the Writ Petition after a long
period only. Upon coming to know about the dismissal, immediately, he filed a
petition seeking restoration of the Writ Petition along with a petition to condone
the delay of 2027 days in filing the restoration petition. However, this Court, under
the impugned order, dismissed the petition seeking condonation of delay.
Submitting as above, learned counsel prays this Court to condone the delay of
2027 days in filing the restoration petition and remit the matter back to the learned
Single Judge to contest the case on merits.
5. Heard learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents on
the above submissions.
6. Though it is the submission of learned counsel for appellant that his name
was not printed in the cause list and some other counsel's name was printed and
hence, he was not aware of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the fact is that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3375 of 2019
writ petitioner has not followed the case with due diligence. The delay of 2027
days had occurred only due to the mistake of the writ petitioner in not following
the matter properly. Having failed to follow up the matter, now, the writ petitioner
cannot contend that due to non-mentioning of the name of his counsel in the cause
list, he was not aware of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, that too, for a period of
more than six years. Absolutely, this Court does not find any merit in the
submission of learned counsel for appellant for condoning the delay of 2027 days
in filing the restoration petition and the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed
the petition observing that the reasons stated by the appellant cannot be sustained
for condoning the delay of 2027 days in filing the restoration petition.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
[R.P.S., J] [S.S.K., J]
01.02.2021
Speaking / Non-speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes
gm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3375 of 2019
To
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Admn.),
Office of the Director General of Police,
Post Box No.60.
2.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,\
Kamarajar Salai,
Madras – 4.
3.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Government Department,
Home Department, Fort St.George,
Madras – 9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.3375 of 2019
R.SUBBIAH, J
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J
gm
W.A.No.3375 of 2019
01.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
