Madras High Court
Government Of Tamil Nadu vs K.G.Mani on 4 March, 2022
WA.Sr.No.107150 of 2021 and
C.M.P.No.20468 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
WA.No.SR107150 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.20468 of 2021
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai- 600 009. ... Appellant
..vs..
K.G.Mani ... Respondent
Prayer in C.M.P.No.20468 of 2021: Petition filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act to condone the delay of 936 days in filing the writ appeal
against the order dated 14.09.2017 made in W.P.No.8687 of 2016.
Prayer in WA.SR.No.106927 of 2021: Appeal filed under Section 15 of
Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 14.09.2017 made in
W.P.No.8687 of 2016.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.Sr.No.107150 of 2021 and
C.M.P.No.20468 of 2021
For Appellant : Ms. S. Mythreyee Chandran
Special Govt.Pleader (Education)
For Respondent : Mr.P.Ganesan
***
ORDER
C.M.P.No.20468 of 2021 is filed to condone the delay of 936 days in
filing the Writ Appeal.
2. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
Appellant submitted that Writ Petitioner who is a vocational instructor
(Agriculture) has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.8687 of 2016 claiming
equal pay on par with other vocational instructors working in the same
Department, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order
dated 14.09.2017. He further submitted that the Appellant has prepared a
review petition in the above Writ Petition and the same was not filed in
view of dismissal of similar Review Petition No.84 of 2019 and thereafter
the Appellant is constrained to file the Writ Appeal. Though the Appellant
herein have decided to prefer an Appeal, against the order of the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.Sr.No.107150 of 2021 and
C.M.P.No.20468 of 2021
Judge dated 14.09.2017, there occurred a delay on account of the following
reasons.
(i) In view of Public Board examinations for S.S.L.C., +1, and +2,
and subsequent paper valuation and result publication work, the staff of the
subordinate officers under the control of the Petitioner/Appellant's office
were deputed to attend the said examination related works during the month
of May 2019.
(ii)After the examination related works were over, during the first
week of June 2019, certain particulars of the Respondent were obtained
from the Subordinate offices and a draft Writ Appeal including the grounds
of Writ Appeal, petition to condone the delay, and petition for stay were
prepared and sent to the Special Government Pleader for his approval
during the third week of July 2019.
(iii) Based on the instructions by the Special Government Pleader,
few more particulars were called for from the Subordinate offices where the
Respondent was working.
(iv) In view of the half yearly examinations conducted in December
2019 and in view of the subsequent New Year and Pongal holidays, the
Petitioner's office was unable to pursue further action for filing Writ Appeal
for want of above particulars.
(v) While the work of preparing Writ Appeal was under process, the
Public Board examinations for the standards of SSLC, 11th and 12th had
commenced and subsequent paper valuation and result publication and
other related works were to be attended by the staff of the Subordinate
Offices. Hence the staff of the subordinate offices were again deputed to
attend the above said examination related works during the month of
February 2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.Sr.No.107150 of 2021 and
C.M.P.No.20468 of 2021
(vi) Due to spread of pandemic caused by the COVID -19 and
subsequent lockdown ordered by the Government from March 2020 and
consequent reduction of staff strength in the Petitioner's office in view of
prevention of spread of COVID 19 in all Government Offices, the Writ
Appeal could not be prepared without the above particulars till August
2020.
(vii)In view of the General Elections conducted in Tamil Nadu, the
staff employed in the petitioner's office as well as the Subordinate officers
were all deputed for election work and other related works and again
because of the lockdown ordered by the Government due to 2nd wave of
COVID-19 pandemic, the Petitioner was not able to pursue further action in
preparing the Writ Appeal till May 2021. Thereafter, after getting the
required particulars the draft Writ Appeal was prepared and sent to the State
Counsel for approval. The same was approved by the State Counsel on
29.06.2021.
3. Mr.P.Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
submitted that sufficient reasons have not been adduced in support of
condonation of delay and therefore this CMP is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard both sides.
5. On reading of the Affidavit, we find that no prima facie case is
made out to condone the delay, as the reasons adduced for the delay prior to
Covid - 19 are not acceptable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.Sr.No.107150 of 2021 and
C.M.P.No.20468 of 2021
6. It is apposite to point out that even if the delay is enormous, if
there is any justifiable ground, the delay has to be condoned. Assuming
that, the delay is very small and the reasons are not germane, the Court
cannot condone the same. In a similar circumstance, a Division Bench of
this Court (SVNJ & MVJ), by an order dated 15.02.2018, in the case of
M/s.Ruskim Sea Foods Limited vs. M/s.Evergreen Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd.,
reported in MANU/TN/0876/2018, which were filed to condone the delay
of 765 days in preferring the Appeal, dismissed the said Petitions. Relevant
Paragraph of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
“32. Ordinarily, the 'Condonation of Delay' is a matter of
discretion to be exercised by the Concerned Court. Also, it is
true that the length and breadth of delay is not relevant, but the
acceptance of explanation can only be a relevant criterion for
the concerned Court to deal with / condone the aspect of
'Condonation of Delay'. However, in this regard, the Petitioner /
concerned litigant is to offer / ascribe sufficient reasons or
project sufficient cause or good cause to condone the delay with
a view to enable the Concerned Court to take a liberal view with
a view to secure the ends of justice.
7. While dealing with yet another similar issue of condoning a huge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.Sr.No.107150 of 2021 and
C.M.P.No.20468 of 2021
delay, a Division Bench of this Court, has observed as follows:
“4. The Court, in exercising discretion, particularly in
these types of Petitions, has to see the conduct, behaviour and
attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence. The
above factors are relevant to be taken into consideration as
the fundamental principle is that Courts are required to weigh
the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and
the said principle cannot be given a total go-by in the name of
liberal approach. There is an increasing tendency to perceive
delay even in a non-serious matter. Hence, the delay due to
nonchalant attitude should be curbed at the initial stage itself.
5 . Considering the above aspects and further the
Affidavit filed for condoning the delay, did not contain any
details as to how the delay of 1860 days had occurred and that
no plausible and proper explanation was assigned for each
and every day's delay, we are of the view that it is a fit case
where the discretion cannot be exercised for condonation of
the delay. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Petition seeking
condonation of 1860 days delay in preferring the Appeal is
dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal also stands
dismissed.”
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of
Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs Reddy Sridevi and others, reported in
MANU/SC/1269/2021, has held as follows:
“7.3 In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra), it is
observed as under:-
“The laws of limitation are founded on public
policy. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as
“statutes of peace”. An unlimited and perpetual threat of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.Sr.No.107150 of 2021 and
C.M.P.No.20468 of 2021
limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind
of limitation is essential for public order. The principle
is based on the maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis
litium”, that is, the interest of the State requires that
there should be end to litigation but at the same time
laws of limitation are a means to ensure private justice
suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and
preventing oppression. The object for fixing time-limit
for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan
for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare.
They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to
dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly.
Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come
to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.”
7.4 In the case of Basawaraj (supra), it is observed and
held by this Court that the discretion to condone the
delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and
circumstances of each case. It is further observed that
the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be liberally
interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides
is attributed to the party. It is further observed that even
though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but
it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed
by statute. It is further observed that in case a party has
acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is
inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for
condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It is
observed that each application for condonation of delay
has to be decided within the framework laid down by
this Court. It is further observed that if courts start
condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out
by imposing conditions then that would amount to
violation of statutory principles and showing utter
disregard to legislature. 7.5 In the case of Pundlik Jalam
Patil (supra), it is observed by this Court that the court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.Sr.No.107150 of 2021 and
C.M.P.No.20468 of 2021
cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the
ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help
those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their
rights”.
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.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
the present Appeal is Allowed. The impugned order dated
16.09.2021 passed by the High Court condoning the delay of
1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal by respondent
Nos.1 and 2 herein is hereby quashed and set aside.
Consequently, Second Appeal No.331 of 2021 preferred by
respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein stands dismissed on the ground
of delay. The present Appeal is accordingly Allowed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.Sr.No.107150 of 2021 and
C.M.P.No.20468 of 2021
9. For all the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to condone the
delay. Thus, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently,
the connected Writ Appeal in SR stage stands rejected. No costs.
(S.V.N., J.) (M.S.Q., J.)
04.03.2022
Index: Yes/No
Speaking (or) Non-speaking Order
arr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.Sr.No.107150 of 2021 and
C.M.P.No.20468 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
arr
WA.No.SR107150 of 2021 and
C.M.P.No.20468 of 2021
04.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.Sr.No.107150 of 2021 and
C.M.P.No.20468 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
