Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs / on 7 October, 2025
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.M.P.(MD)No.6599 of 2024
in
W.A.(MD)SR No.32966 of 2024
1. The Managing Director,
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Limited,
Kattapomman Nagar,
Tirunelveli - 627 011,
Tirunelveli District.
2. The General Manager,
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Limited,
Nagercoil Region,
Ranithottam - 629 001,
Kanyakumari District. ... Petitioner
/Vs./
N.Albert Rajaretnam ... Respondent
PRAYER in C.M.P.(MD)No.6599 of 2024:- Petition - filed under Section
5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 393 days in preferring the
writ appeal.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 10:55:27 am )
PRAYER in W.A.(MD)SR No.32966 of 2024:- Appeal - filed under
Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in WP(MD)No.
4059 of 2020 dated 09.01.2023.
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Jebaraj
For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
This petition has been filed seeking condonation of delay of
393 days in filing the writ appeal.
2. Service is complete on the respondent and description is
printed in the cause list.
3. We are entirely dissatisfied with the reasons adduced in the
petition filed originally, as the affidavit had cursorily stated that the
matter had been placed before the Board and thereafter, an opinion had
been obtained from the petitioner's counsel. A supplementary affidavit
has now been filed by the petitioner, which also does not persuade us.
Para 7 of the affidavit dated 24.09.2025 reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 10:55:27 am )
“7. I further submit that the order copy of the writ
petition in WP(MD)No.4059 of 2020 dated 09.01.2023 was
received on 01.03.2023 and was referred to the
appellants/petitioners legal department on 07.03.2023 and
was sent to the previous standing counsel for legal opinion
and got the same on 09.03.2023. Thereafter administrative
approval is obtained, the same was sent to the present
standing counsel on 26.06.2023 with instruction for filing
the writ appeal. In the meantime, at the time of shifting the
office of the standing counsel from No.1/296, Sooriyagandhi
Street, Valarnagar, Madurai to 1/285, Sooriyagandhi Street,
Valarngar, Madurai the typed set of papers of the Writ
Appeal was misplaced. After a long search it was found
place only in the month April, 2024. The writ appeal ought
to have been filed within one month from the receipt of the
copy of the order i.e. on 31.03.2023. There is a delay of 393
days in filing this writ appeal.”
4. On perusal of the same, we find no justification made out
for the delay, as the only reason stated is administrative. The sequence of
events that have been set out in paragraph 7, above only serve to
illustrate the careless and casual manner in which the file has been dealt
with by the authorities, involving delay at every stage.
5. In the case of Postmaster General and others V. Living
Media India Limited and another, the Supreme Court has considered the
ambit of the phrase ‘sufficient cause’ in the context of condonation of
delay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 10:55:27 am )
6. Taking note of the judgments in the cases of CWT V.
Amateur Riders Club and Pundlik Jalam Patil V. Jalgaon Medium
Project, the Court at paragraph 28, holds that even when there was no
gross negligence, deliberate inaction or lack of bonafides where a liberal
concession on delay may be adopted to advance the substantial cause of
justice, the Postmaster General had cited only bureaucratic delays, which
cannot be accepted. They state ‘the claim on account of impersonal
machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several
notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used
and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody,
including the Government’.
7. The observations and conclusions at paragraph 29 are on
point, and read as follows:
“29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all
the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities
that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation
for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need
to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept
pending for several months/years due to considerable degree
of procedural red tape in the process. The government
departments are under a special obligation to ensure that
they perform their duties with diligence and commitment.
Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 10:55:27 am )
as an anticipated benefit for the government departments.
The law shelters everyone under the same light and should
not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a recent case in School
Education Department & Others vs. Sarita Mishra & Another (Special
Leave Petition (civil) Diary No(s). 24926/2023, dated 28.11.2023) has
dismissed a petition seeking condonation of 283 days delay with costs,
holding as follows:-
“The special leave petition has been filed with a
delay of 283 days in filing and 121 days in refiling the
special leave petition against an order dismissing a Writ
Appeal filed after delay of 994 days: so much for the
efficiency of the department!
We have categorized all such cases as “certificate
cases”. The objective is to see that the department washes its
hands off for its non performance to obtain dismissal from
this Court.
We fail to appreciate such a scenario. In this
behalf, suffice to refer to our judgments in the State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C] Diary No.
9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and The State of Odisha
& Ors. v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No.
22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]. The leeway which was
given to the Government/public authorities on account of
innate inefficiencies was the result of certain orders of this
Court which came at a time when technology had not
advanced and thus, greater indulgence was shown. This
position is no more prevalent and the current legal position
has been elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office
of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 10:55:27 am )
India Ltd. & Anr. – (2012) 3 SCC 563.
Looking to the delay not only before the High
Court and further delay before us, we dismiss the special
leave petition as time barred with a costs of Rs. 10,000/- to
be deposited with the Supreme Court Group ‘C’ (Non-
Clerical) Employees Welfare Association.”
9. In the light of the above, we find no justification for the
delay of 393 days, and hence, this miscellaneous petition seeking
condonation of delay of 393 days in filing the writ appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed in SR stage.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,]
07.10.2025
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 10:55:27 am )
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
sm
Order made in
in
Dated:
07.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 10:55:27 am )
