Madras High Court
The Additional Chief Secretary/ vs S.Balakrishnan on 7 January, 2022
C.M.P.No.18844 of 2021
in W.A.(SR).No.100651 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 07.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
C.M.P.No.18844 of 2021
in W.A.(SR).No.100651 of 2021
1.The Additional Chief Secretary/
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
2.The District Collector,
Namakkal District. ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.S.Balakrishnan
2.T.Mohanraj
3.S.Sasikumar
4.K.Geetha
5.V.Sundar
6.C.Prakash
7.V.Kalaivani
8.S.Nesamalar
9.N.Vasanthi
10.M.Karthikeyan
11.V.Govindaraja ... Respondents
Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the
delay of 655 days in filing the Writ Appeal against the order dated
18.12.2019 made in W.P.No.22235 of 2018.
Page 1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.18844 of 2021
in W.A.(SR).No.100651 of 2021
For Petitioners : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar,
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.S.Vijayakumar
ORDER
(Order of the Court made by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
When the delay is nearly two years in filing the Writ Appeal as against
the order passed in W.P.No.22235 of 2018 dated 18.12.2019, the petitioners
have filed the above petitions to condone the delay of 66 days (wrongly
stated as 66 days, when the actual delay is 655 days).
2.In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it could be seen
that pursuant to the order passed in the Writ Petition in W.P.No.22235 of
2018 dated 18.12.2019, they have filed a Contempt Petition in Contempt
Petition No.872 of 2020. The petitioners/appellants have also filed a Review
Application in Review Application No.49 of 2021, which was dismissed by
the learned Single Judge on 15.09.2021. On dismissal of the Review
Application, the learned Single Judge posted the Contempt Petition for
compliance on 04.10.2021.
Page 2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.18844 of 2021
in W.A.(SR).No.100651 of 2021
3.It is also brought to the notice of this Court by Mr.S.Vijayakumar,
learned counsel appearing for the private respondents that statutory notice
was issued in the Contempt Petition and the petitioners/appellants have
also appeared before the learned Single Judge in the said Contempt
Petition.
4.When the petitioners had sufficient knowledge about the order
dated 18.12.2019 passed in the Writ Petition, they chose to file the Writ
Appeal only on 02.11.2021.
5.It is settled law that a person seeking for condonation of the delay
should give sufficient reason for condonation of the delay.
6.In the case on hand, inspite of the fact that the petitioners had
knowledge about the order passed on 18.12.2019 in the Writ Petition, they
have filed the Writ Appeal only on 02.11.2021. The reasoning given by the
learned Additional Government Pleader that the petitioners have filed the
Writ Appeal only after the dismissal of the Review Application and
Page 3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.18844 of 2021
in W.A.(SR).No.100651 of 2021
therefore, there is a delay of 66 days, cannot be accepted. The period of
limitation shall start from the date of passing of the order and not from the
date of dismissal of the Review Application.
7.Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that the petitioners have not only misrepresented before this
Court as to the number of days in the affidavit, but also have not given
sufficient reason for condonation of the delay. In support of his contention,
the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
made in Civil Appeal No.7696 of 2021 [Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao
Vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors.], wherein the Apex Court held as follows:
“...
6.2. We have gone through the averments in the
application for the condonation of delay. There is no sufficient
explanation for the period from 15.03.2017 till the Second
Appeal was preferred in the year 2021. In the application
seeking condonation of delay it was stated that she is aged 45
years and was looking after the entire litigation and that she
was suffering from health issues and she had fallen sick from
01.01.2017 to 15.03.2017 and she was advised to take bed rest
for the said period. However, there is no explanation for the
period after 15.03.2017. Thus, the period of delay from
Page 4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.18844 of 2021
in W.A.(SR).No.100651 of 2021
15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was filed in the year 2021
has not at all been explained. Therefore, the High Court has
not exercised the discretion judiciously.
...
8.Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and
considering the averments in the application for condonation
of delay, we are of the opinion that as such no explanation
much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation had been
offered by respondent nos.1 and 2 herein – appellants before
the High Court for condonation of huge delay of 1011 days in
preferring the Second Appeal. The High Court is not at all
justified in exercising its discretion to condone such a huge
delay. The High Court has not exercised the discretion
judiciously. The reasoning given by the High Court while
condoning huge delay of 1011 days is not germane. Therefore,
the High Court has erred in condoning the huge delay of 1011
days in preferring the appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein
– original defendants. Impugned order passed by the High Court
is unsustainable both, on law as well as on facts.”
8.The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court squarely applies
to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
Page 5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.18844 of 2021
in W.A.(SR).No.100651 of 2021
9.The petitioners cannot be allowed to file petitions in a casual
manner, misrepresenting that the delay was only 66 days, when actually, it
was nearly two years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported
in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 680 [H.Dohil Constructions Company
Private Limited Vs. Nahar Exports Limited and another], categorically
held that a person seeking for condonation of the delay should give
sufficient reason for the delay and in the absence of sufficient reason given
by the party, the delay should not be condoned. In the case on hand, the
reasoning given in the affidavit filed in support of the petition cannot be
accepted in any manner whatsoever.
10.In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to condone the
delay in filing the Writ Appeal. Accordingly, the petition in C.M.P.No.18844
of 2021 is dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal in W.A.(SR).No.100651
of 2021 is rejected. No costs.
Index : Yes/No [M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.]
va 07.01.2022
Page 6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.18844 of 2021
in W.A.(SR).No.100651 of 2021
M.DURAISWAMY,J .
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
va
C.M.P.No.18844 of 2021
in W.A.(SR).No.100651 of 2021
Page 7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.18844 of 2021
in W.A.(SR).No.100651 of 2021
07.01.2022
Page 8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
