[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Unknown vs T.Seeralan on 23 March, 2026
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
C.M.P(MD)No.3335 of 2026 in
W.A(MD)SRNo.14263 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
C.M.P.(MD)No.3335 of 2026
in
W.A.(MD)SR.No.14263 of 2026
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai.
2.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home (POL-IV) Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai.
3.The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu,
O/o.The Director General of Police,
Chennai.
4.The Additional Director General of Police,
Law and Order,
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
C.M.P(MD)No.3335 of 2026 in
W.A(MD)SRNo.14263 of 2026
5.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range,
Madurai.
6.The Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar. ... Petitioners/Appellants
-Vs-
T.Seeralan,
S/o. A.Theivaraj,
No.1/67, North Street,
Thethur Post, Vadipatty Taluk - 625 503,
Madurai District. ... Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER in C.M.P.(MD)No.3335 of 2026: Petition filed under Section 5
of the Limitation Act, Civil Procedure Code, to condone the delay of 1004
days occurred in filing the Writ Appeal.
PRAYER in W.A.(MD)SR.No.14263 of 2026: Petition filed under Clause
15 of Letters Patent, to allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order dated
19.04.2023 made in W.P.(MD)No.7253 of 2020 on the file of this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
C.M.P(MD)No.3335 of 2026 in
W.A(MD)SRNo.14263 of 2026
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the
delay of 1004 days in filing the Writ Appeal.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and
perused the materials available on record.
3.The reasons assigned for the delay are that the order in the
Writ Petition was passed on 19.04.2023 and was received by the 6th
petitioner/appellant, namely, the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar
District, on 05.07.2023. Thereafter, the matter was processed at various
administrative levels, including the office of the Director General of Police
and the Government, involving exchange of communications, consideration
of the respondent’s representation, and verification of connected records,
including disciplinary proceedings and files relating to the respondent and
the co-delinquent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
C.M.P(MD)No.3335 of 2026 in
4.During the said process, clarifications were sought by the
Government on multiple occasions, and replies were furnished by the
Director General of Police after obtaining remarks from the concerned
authorities. The relevant files, including the PR files of the respondent and
the co-delinquent, were also called for, scrutinized, and forwarded to the
Government.
5.Ultimately, upon consideration of all materials, the
Government, by letter dated 05.01.2026, instructed the petitioners/appellants
to prefer an appeal in the interest of the department. Pursuant thereto,
necessary directions were issued, and after collecting the connected records
and obtaining legal opinion, steps were taken to file the present Writ Appeal.
Thus, the delay of 1004 days in filing the Writ Appeal has occurred due to
administrative reasons and procedural formalities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
C.M.P(MD)No.3335 of 2026 in
6.According to the petitioners, unless the delay is condoned,
they would suffer hardship, whereas no prejudice would be caused to the
respondent.
7.Normally, the Court adopts a liberal approach while
considering petitions for condonation of delay. At the same time, in order to
extend such a liberal approach, there must be justifiable reasons. In the
present case, the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking
condonation of such a huge delay is bereft of sufficient and satisfactory
particulars explaining the inordinate delay. In the absence of any acceptable
explanation, condonation of such delay cannot be sought as a matter of right.
8.In this regard, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Others vs.
Melvisharam Muslim Educational Society reported in 2018 (3) CTC 420,
wherein it has been held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
C.M.P(MD)No.3335 of 2026 in
“...Though the delay is condoned by the Court
normally in a liberal manner, the said approach cannot be
extended mechanically without any plausible explanation. What
is pitted against an ordinary litigant is also pitted against the
Government before a Court of law to establish a particular fact.
Though the words ‘sufficient cause’ have to be given a liberal
interpretation, to exercise discretion for such liberal approach,
there must be necessary facts in the affidavit filed in support of
the same. But, on a perusal of the affidavit, we do not find any
plausible explanation for such delay except stating that there is
an administrative delay. Such vague and bald explanation
cannot be accepted mechanically. When Courts are extending
such liberal approach mechanically, it has become a routine affairs
of the Government Departments to file the appeals against every
order passed by the Court. The present day scenario in filing the
appeal, challenging every order by the Government Departments,
clearly exhibits shirking responsibility of the Department Heads. In
fact, now the tendency has developed among the Department Heads,
not to take any risk and to avoid any question relate to the litigant
and only in order to avoid any query, the administrative side files
these types of appeals, though there is no merit in the appeal.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
C.M.P(MD)No.3335 of 2026 in
9.When the law mandates that a particular act shall be performed
within a stipulated time, the same cannot be diluted. What applies to a
common litigant equally applies to the Government. The authorities cannot
sit over the files and approach this Court belatedly with flimsy reasons. A
Court, while granting indulgence, must be satisfied that there was due
diligence on the part of the appellants. In the absence of sufficient cause,
delay cannot be condoned as a matter of right.
10.While exercising discretion in such petitions, the Court has to
consider the conduct, behaviour, and attitude of the party with respect to its
inaction or negligence. These factors are relevant, as the Court is required to
balance the interests of both parties. The principle of liberal approach cannot
be extended to the extent of condoning inordinate delay caused due to a
nonchalant attitude. Such tendency must be curbed at the threshold.
11.Further, the Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
C.M.P(MD)No.3335 of 2026 in
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.7253 of 2020, dated
19.04.2023, wherein the learned Single Judge, upon considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, granted relief in favour of the writ petitioner.
On a prima facie consideration, we do not find any substantial ground
warranting interference with the said order. Thus, even on merits, the
petitioners/appellants have not made out a case.
12.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected W.A.(MD) SR No.14263 of 2026 is rejected at
the SR stage itself. No costs.
[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.]
23.03.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
C.M.P(MD)No.3335 of 2026 in
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai.
2.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home (POL-IV) Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai.
3.The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu,
O/o.The Director General of Police,
Chennai.
4.The Additional Director General of Police,
Law and Order,
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai.
5.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range,
Madurai.
6.The Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
C.M.P(MD)No.3335 of 2026 in
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ps
in W.A(MD)SR.No.14263 of 2026
DATED : 23.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
