The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of a Revision Petition filed with a delay of 8 years and 8 months. The court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate valid reasons for the delay.
The writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.09.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.23629 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.24816 of 2017
E.Ramesh ...Petitioner
/Versus/
1. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Kancheepuram Region,
Kancheepuram.
2. G.1644 Walajabad Primary Agricultural
Co-operative Credit Society,
Rep by its President,
Walajabad & Post,
Kancheepuram District. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuant to the 1st impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in Proceedings Na.Ka.No.1878/2017/Sa.Pa dated 28.03.2017 and the subsequent 2nd impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in Proceedings Na.Ka.No.1878/2017/Sa.Pa dated 08.05.2017 and quash these orders and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the Revision Petitions of the petitioner dated 23.03.2017 and the subsequent representation dated 17.04.2017.
The order of rejection of the Revision Petition filed by the writ petitioner under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
"19. Though the above provision provides for admission of any appeal or application after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the period, the explanation clause would make it clear that in order for admission of appeal or application, the appellant or the applicant has to establish that he was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period. In this case, the appellant has neither satisfied the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time nor is it his case that he was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention as well."
In view of the legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the present case deserves no further consideration.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioner can condone a delay of 8 years and 8 months in filing the writ petition to set aside the rejection of his Revision Petition.
Whether the affidavit filed provides sufficient reasons for the huge delay in filing the challenge.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.Selvakumar vs State of Tamil Nadu and othersExplained¶13
2014(26) R.C.R. (Civil) 495
2 provisions across 2 enactments
E.Ramesh
The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kancheepuram Region, Kancheepuram
G.1644 Walajabad Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
