Allowed

K.S.Bhadran v. Tamilnadu Khadi and Vill.

Madras HC29 Nov 2016CMP(MD)/11306/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court permitted an application for condonation of a 710-day delay in filing a writ appeal. The court accepted the petitioner's explanation that the delay was caused by the shifting of offices resulting in the misplacement of the case file, finding it neither wilful nor wanton, and ordered the Registry to admit the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 710 days in representing the writ appeal is condoned; Registry directed to number, list for admission, and print the name of counsel for respondents.

K.S.Bhadran Vs Tamilnadu Khadi and Vill. — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶2

Tuesday, the Twenty Ninth day of November Two Thousand Sixteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

and The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice J.NISHA BANU

¶6

CMP(MD) No.11306 of 2016 IN WA(MD) No.SR40658 of 2014

¶7

K.S.BHADRAN ... PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶8

¶9

1 TAMILNADU KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KURALAGAM, CHENNAI.

¶10

2 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TAMILNADU KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, NAGERCOIL,

¶11

KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to condone the delay of 710 days in representing the above writ appeal in W.A.(MD).SR.No.40568/2014.

¶13

Prayer in W.A.(MD).SR.No.40568/2014:-

¶14

Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act against the order passed by this Honourable Court in WP(MD)No.15147 of 2012, dated 30.07.2014.

¶15

Prayer in WP(MD)No.15147 of 2012:-

¶16

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Apiarist Grade II with effect from 1998 with all consequential, monetary, service and attendance benefit from the year 1998 within a stipulated period prescribed by the Honourable Court .

¶17

ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. K.VAMANAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of

¶18

Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian, Special Government Pleader on behalf of the Respondents the court made the following order:-

¶19

(Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN ,J. )

¶20

Affidavit has been sworn to by the Advocate Clerk attached to the office of the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is stated that on account of shifting of office, the bundle was misplaced with other bundles and therefore the delay has occurred. He further stated that the delay in re-presentation is neither wilful nor wanton. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for condonation of delay.

¶21

Mr.AK.Baskara Pandian, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and submitted that in the event of he petitioner/appellant succeeds in the writ appeal, the consequential benefits for the period of 710 days may be excluded.

¶22

This Court upon hearing the rival submissions, is of the view that the petitioner has satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay in re-presentation. Therefore the delay is condoned. It is open to the learned Special Government Pleader to bring to knowledge about the exclusion of above said period to the concerned Court at the time of passing orders. If the papers are otherwise in order, Registry is directed to number the appeal and list it for admission and print the name of Mr.AK.Baskara Pandian, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

sd/-

29/11/2016

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶27

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶28

¶29

1 TAMILNADU KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KURALAGAM, CHENNAI.

¶30

2 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TAMILNADU KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, NAGERCOIL,

¶31

KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT

¶32

JIKR

¶33

CSL/EM-MPA/SAR-II/07.12.2016: 2P/3C

¶34

CMP(MD) No.11306 of 2016

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

WA(MD) No.SR40658 of 2014

K.S.Bhadran v. Tamilnadu Khadi and Vill.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Bhadran v. Tamilnadu Khadi and Vill.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reddiarkal Nalasangam Vs Secretary to Govt.

D. Rajeswari, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

V.Ramachandran Vs the Secretary

C.R.Usha Vs C.R.Ramesh Babu

T.K. Naganathan, Vs the Secy to Govt.

A.Vellaichamy, Vs the District Collector