Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs M. Lettice Mary on 28 March, 2022
W.A.SR. No.119465 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No.21762 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NIDUMOLU MALA
W.A.SR No. 119465 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No. 21762 of 2021
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600009. ..Appellant/
Petitioner
Vs.
M. Lettice Mary ..Respondent
Prayer in C.M.P.No. 21762 of 2021: Petition filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1489 days in filing the writ
appeal.
1\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.SR. No.119465 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No.21762 of 2021
Prayer in WA.SR.No. 119465 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. 9675 of 2015.
For Appellant :: Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu
Additional Govt. Pleader
ORDER
The above C.M.P. has been listed today to condone the delay of 1489
days in filing the writ appeal.
2. An affidavit has been filed in support of the civil miscellaneous
petition outlining the reasons that have attributed to the delay of 1489 days
in preferring the writ appeal. From a perusal of the affidavit filed in support
of the miscellaneous petition, it is seen that though originally, the
petitioner/proposed appellant intended to file a review petition, owing to
dismissal of a similar kind of review petition, the petitioner/proposed
appellant was constrained to prefer the writ appeal. The affidavit further
states that on account of conduct of Public Board Examinations for SSLC,
XI and XII standards, followed by paper valuation and result publication
2\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.SR. No.119465 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No.21762 of 2021
works, the staff of subordinate offices under the control of the
petitioner/proposed appellant were deputed to attend the said examination
related works during May, 2019 as well as in February, 2020, during which
time the writ appeal papers were under process. Besides, on account of
lockdown imposed by the Government twice due to pandemic and
consequent reduction in staff strength and in view of General Elections
conducted in Tamil Nadu, appropriate steps could not be taken to prefer the
writ appeal in time, resulting in the aforesaid delay of 1489 days. The
learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that since the delay is
neither wilful nor wanton and had occurred only due to administrative
reasons, the delay may be condoned.
3. 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.
4. It is apposite to point out that even if the delay is enormous, if there
3\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.SR. No.119465 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No.21762 of 2021
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.
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
4\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.SR. No.119465 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No.21762 of 2021
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.”
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
5\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.SR. No.119465 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No.21762 of 2021
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
cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the
6\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.SR. No.119465 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No.21762 of 2021
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."
7. For all the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to condone the
7\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.SR. No.119465 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No.21762 of 2021
delay. Thus, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the
connected Writ Appeal in SR stage stands rejected. No costs.
(S.V.N.J.) (N.M.J.)
nv 28.03.2022
To
The Principal Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009.
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
NIDUMOLU MALA,J.
nv
W.A.SR. No.119465 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No.21762 of 2021
8\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.SR. No.119465 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No.21762 of 2021
28.03.2022
9\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
