Madras High Court
Government Of Tamil Nadu vs P.Anbarasu on 4 March, 2022
W.A.SR.No.107077 of 2021
and
CMP.No.427 of 2022
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
W.A. SR.No.107077 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.427 of 2021
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009. ...Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
P.Anbarasu ... Respondent/Petitioner
Prayer in C.M.P.No.427 of 2021: Petition filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1503 days in filing the writ appeal
against the order dated 14.09.2017 made in W.P.No.8688 of 2016.
Prayer in WA.SR.No.26896 of 2020: Appeal filed under Section 15 of Letters
Patent against the order of this Court dated 14.09.2017 made in W.P.No.8688
of 2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.A.SR.No.107077 of 2021
and
CMP.No.427 of 2022
For Appellant : Ms.S.Mythreye Chandran (Education)
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.P.Ganesan
ORDER
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of
1503 days in filing the above writ appeal against the order dated 14.09.2017
made in W.P.No.8688 of 2016.
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.Nos.8688 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 preferred a draft 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 filed in another W.P.No.17169 of 2015 and hence 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 Judge dated
14.09.2017, there occurred a delay on account of the following reasons.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.SR.No.107077 of 2021
and
CMP.No.427 of 2022
(i) In view of Common Public examinations for S.S.L.C., +1, and +2,
which was conducted during March and April 2019 the staff of the subordinate
officers were directed to attend the said examination and other related works.
(ii) Since certain particulars were sought for by the Special Government
Pleader, High Court during 2nd week of August 2019 the same were called for
from the Subordinate offices and collected during the middle of September
2019 and resubmitted the Writ Appeal papers to the Office of the Special
Government Pleader, High Court, during first week of October 2019. However,
few more particulars were called for the Special Government Pleader.
(iii) Again in view of the common public examinations which was
conducted during March and April 2020, the staff of the subordinate officers
were directed to attend the said examination and other related works.
(iv) Due to spread of pandemic caused by COVID -19 and subsequent
lockdown ordered by the Government from March 2020 and consequent
reduction of staff strength in all Government officers including the Petitioner's
offices, the Writ Appeal could not be prepared without the above particulars till
August 2020.
(v) In view of the subsequent lock down orders and reduction in staff
strength and further New Year and Pongal holidays, the office of the
Petitioner/Appellant was not able to prepare the Writ Appeal papers during the
months of January-February 2021.
(vi) 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 during April to August 2021.
(vii) Subsequent to the reduction in the staff strength in all Government
Offices, due to COVID Pandemic the Petitioner/ Appellant with great difficulty
has completed all works relating to the filing of Writ Appeal during the month
of September 2021 and after getting approval of the Special Government
Pleader and permission from the higher officials during the month of September
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.SR.No.107077 of 2021
and
CMP.No.427 of 2022
2021, filed the Writ Appeal with delay of 1503 days.
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.SR.No.107077 of 2021
and
CMP.No.427 of 2022
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
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.SR.No.107077 of 2021
and
CMP.No.427 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.SR.No.107077 of 2021
and
CMP.No.427 of 2022
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 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."
9. For all the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to condone the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.SR.No.107077 of 2021
and
CMP.No.427 of 2022
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.)
01.03.2022
Index: Yes/No
Speaking (or) Non-speaking Order
arr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.SR.No.107077 of 2021
and
CMP.No.427 of 2022
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
arr
W.A.SR.No.107077 of 2021
and
CMP.No.427 of 2022
01.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
