[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Martin Xavier on 21 January, 2026
CMP No.19873 of 2025
and WA SR No.93927 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
C.M.P.No.19873 of 2025
and W.A.SR No.93927 of 2025
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Industries Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009
2.The District Collector
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram
3.The Special Tahsildar (L.A)
Unit I SIPCOT Oragadam Expansion
II Scheme, SIPCOT,
Pillaipakkam Project Office Building,
Kundrathur Main Road,
Sriperumbudur 602 105
Petitioners/
Appellants
Vs
Martin Xavier
_____________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:02 pm )
CMP No.19873 of 2025
and WA SR No.93927 of 2025
S/o. Amaladoss,
No. 2-L, Sri Vari Apartments,
18, Abdul Razak Street, Saidapet
Chennai – 600 015.
Respondent
Prayer in C.M.P.No.19873 of 2025: Application filed to condone the
delay of 459 days in filing the above Writ Appeal against the order
dated 20.02.2024 made in W.P.No.828 of 2024.
Prayer in W.A.SR No.93927 of 2025: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of
the Letters Patent to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge
passed in W.P.No.828 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024.
For Petitioner(s)/ Mr.E.Vijay Anand
Appellant(s): Addl. Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
In support of the prayer seeking condonation of delay of 459
days, all that has been stated in the affidavit is as below:
“7. After having obtained opinion as it advised to file
appeal against the order dated 20.02.2024, steps have
been taken to file the Writ Appeal and in the
interregnum there arose a delay of 459 days in filing
the above appeal. As stated above, the delay of 459
days, thus caused, in filing the above appeal is neither
willful nor wanton but due to the bonafide
administrative reasons stated supra. If the delay of
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:02 pm )
459 days in filing the appeal is not condoned, the
petitioners/appellants would be put to much hardship
besides being put to severe monetary loss. On the
other hand no prejudice will be caused to the
Respondent herein by condoning the delay of 459 days
in filing the above appeal.”
2. To say the least, no cause, much less sufficient cause, has
been shown. It appears that the officials concerned dealing with the
files were completely indolent and sat over the matter without doing
anything.
3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in umpteen number of
judgments, held that the period of limitation is required to be
explained by the State and it does not stand on any exalted position.
(i) In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. V. Bherulal 1, it
was found that the appeal filed by the State was with delay of 663
days. The cause shown for inordinate delay in that case was due to
unavailability of documents and the process of arranging documents
and also a reference to bureaucratic process works. In the aforesaid
(2020) 10 SCC 654
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:02 pm )
factual context, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, observed as
below:
"3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the
Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the
authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements
for a period of time when technology had not advanced
and a greater leeway was given to the Government
(Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst.
Katiji & Ors. MANU/SC/0460/1987 : (1987) 2 SCC
107). This position is more than elucidated by the
judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post
Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.
MANU/SC/0132/2012 : (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the
Court observed as under:
"27. It is not in dispute that the person(s)
concerned were well aware or conversant with
the issues involved including the prescribed
period of limitation for taking up the matter by
way of filing a special leave petition in this
Court. They cannot claim that they have a
separate period of limitation when the
Department was possessed with competent
persons familiar with court proceedings. In the
absence of plausible and acceptable
explanation, we are posing a question why the
delay is to be condoned mechanically merely
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:02 pm )
because the Government or a wing of the
Government is a party before us.
28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in
a matter of condonation of delay when there
was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction
or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to
be adopted to advance substantial justice, we
are of the view that in the facts and
circumstances, the Department cannot take
advantage of various earlier decisions. 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.
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
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:02 pm )
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 as an anticipated benefit
for government departments. The law shelters
everyone under the same light and should not
be swirled for the benefit of a few.
30. Considering the fact that there was no
proper explanation offered by the Department
for the delay except mentioning of various
dates, according to us, the Department has
miserably failed to give any acceptable and
cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a
huge delay."
Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded!"
(ii) In another decision in the case of State of Maharashtra v.
Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd 2, also, in the factual
context of long delay of 75 days, the explanation was found to be
short of any sufficient cause. The explanation in the aforesaid case was
noted in para 67 of the said judgment as below:
(2021) 6 SCC 460
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:02 pm )
"67. That apart, on the facts of this appeal, there is a
long delay of 75 days beyond the period of 60 days
provided by the Commercial Courts Act. Despite the
fact that a certified copy of the District Court's
judgment was obtained by the respondent on
27.04.2019, the appeal was filed only on 09.09.2019,
the explanation for delay being:
‘2. That, the certified copy of the order dated
01/04/2013 was received by the appellant on
27/04/2019. Thereafter the matter was placed
before the CGM purchase MPPKVVCL for the
compliance of the order. The same was then
sent to the law officer, MPPKVVCL for opinion.
3. That after taking opinion for appeal and
approval of the concerned authorities, the
officer-in-charge was appointed vide order
dated 23/07/2019.
4. That, thereafter due to bulky records of the
case and for procurement of the necessary
documents some delay has been caused
however, the appeal has been prepared and
filed to pursuant to the same and further
delay.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:02 pm )
5. That due to the aforesaid procedural
approval and since the appellant is a public
entity formed under the Energy department of
the State Government, the delay caused in
filing the appeal is bonafide and which
deserve[s] to be condoned.’”
However the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not satisfied with the
cause shown on the above lines and it was held as below:
"66. This explanation falls woefully short of making out
any sufficient cause. This appeal is therefore allowed
and the condonation of delay is set aside on this score
also."
(iii) In a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board3, it is observed thus:
“261. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned
order of the High Court deserves to be set aside.
Before we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it
appropriate to make it abundantly clear that
administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a
sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we
2025 INSC 1104
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:02 pm )
want to convey an emphatic message to all the High
Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous
and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient
cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is
able to establish that it acted with bona fides and
remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is a
handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts,
and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought
not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State
agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation
from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical
attitude.
262. The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing
effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its
instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if
the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-
authority. They should not become surrogates for State
laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to
be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private
litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of
perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees
or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages. We
are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put
all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters
with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:02 pm )
by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury,
more particularly in appeals under Section 100 of the
CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to
questions of law.”
4. As the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the
application do not constitute sufficient cause, the application is
dismissed. Consequently, WA SR is rejected. There shall be no order
as to costs.
It is open for the State to take appropriate disciplinary action
against those officials, whose inaction and whimsical negligence, was
the reason for the appeal being filed beyond the period of limitation.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
21.01.2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sasi
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:02 pm )
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(sasi)
21.01.2026
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:10:02 pm )
