Madras High Court
Principal Commissioner And vs K.Jayachandran on 4 March, 2022
WA.Sr.No.26896 of 2020 and
C.M.P.No.5703 of 2020
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.SR26896 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.5703 of 2020
Principal Commissioner and,
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-5. ... Appellant
..vs..
K.Jayachandran ... Respondent
Prayer in C.M.P.No.5703 of 2020: Petition filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2141 days in filing the writ appeal
against the order dated 18.03.2014 made in W.P.No.7601 of 2007.
Prayer in WA.SR.No.26896 of 2020: Appeal filed under Section 15 of
Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 18.03.2014 made in
W.P.No.7601 of 2007.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.Sr.No.26896 of 2020 and
C.M.P.No.5703 of 2020
For Appellant : Ms.V.Jamuna Devi
Special Govt.Pleader
For Respondent : Not ready in notice
***
ORDER
C.M.P.No.5703 of 2020 is filed to condone the delay of 2141 days in
filing the Writ Appeal.
2. It is represented by the learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner was dismissed from
service for demanding bribe and in the Writ Petition filed by the Employee
in W.P.No.7601 of 2007 , the punishment order was set aside by the
learned Single Judge. Though the Petitioner herein has decided to prefer
an Appeal, against the order of the learned Judge dated 18.03.2014, there
occurred a delay on account of the following reasons.
(i) The case bundle was misplaced and it was not traced out.
(ii) The seat of concerned Assistant is vacant.
(iii) Due to General Elections of Tamil Nadu Leglislative Assembly
entire staff were engaged in election work.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.Sr.No.26896 of 2020 and
C.M.P.No.5703 of 2020
3. It is seen that service on the Respondent is incomplete and
therefore, there was no representation on behalf of the Respondent.
4. 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 are not
acceptable. Further, the First Bench of this Court vide order dated
23.07.2020 has already rejected the affidavit filed in support of the delay
condonation petition.
5. 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.Sr.No.26896 of 2020 and
C.M.P.No.5703 of 2020
“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.
5. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.Sr.No.26896 of 2020 and
C.M.P.No.5703 of 2020
preferring the Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Writ
Appeal also stands dismissed.”
6. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.Sr.No.26896 of 2020 and
C.M.P.No.5703 of 2020
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.Sr.No.26896 of 2020 and
C.M.P.No.5703 of 2020
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."
6. 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
arr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.Sr.No.26896 of 2020 and
C.M.P.No.5703 of 2020
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
arr
WA.Sr.No.26896 of 2020 and
C.M.P.No.5703 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.Sr.No.26896 of 2020 and
C.M.P.No.5703 of 2020
04.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
