Dismissed

The District Elementary Educational Officer v. Rahim Brothers Middle School

Madras HC12 Aug 2020CMP(MD)/890/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking condonation of a 1026-day delay in filing a Writ Appeal. The Court rejected the plea, citing lack of tenable or acceptable explanation for the administrative delay, relying on Supreme Court precedents on gross negligence.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal in W.A(MD)SR.No.3501 of 2020 stands rejected.

The District Elementary Educational Officer Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

C.M.P.(MD)No.890 of 2020

¶2

in W.A.(MD).SR.No.3501 of 2020

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶4

DATED : 12.08.2020

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶7

C.M.P.(MD)No.890 of 2020 in W.A.(MD).SR.No.3501 of 2020

¶8

The District Elementary Educational Officer, District Elementary Educational Officer, Theni District.

¶9

The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Periakulam, Theni District. ...Petitioners / Appellants/ Respondents

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Rahim Brothers Middle School, Vadakarai, Periakulam, Theni District, Rep. by Correspondent, A.Musthafa ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner

¶12

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 1026 days in filing the above Writ Appeal as against the order, dated 01.03.2017 passed in W.P.(MD).No.5841 of 2011 on the file of this Court.

¶13

Prayer in WA(MD).SR.No.3501/2011 : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patient to set aside the order dated 01.03.2017 passed in WP(MD)No.5841/2011.

¶14

Prayer in WP(MD). 5841/ 2011 :

¶15

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent in his Proc. Na.Ka.No.295/A2/11, dated 26-05-2011 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the 1st Respondent to release salary grant and other monetary benefits without any interruption.

¶16

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

¶17

1/4

¶18

C.M.P.(MD)No.890 of 2020 in W.A.(MD).SR.No.3501 of 2020

¶19

For Appellants : Mrs.S.Srimathy

¶20

Special Government Pleader

¶21

For Respondent

¶22

: Mr. H.Mohammed Imran

¶23

ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

Heard the submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners/appellants and perused the affidavit filed in support of this petition, to condone the delay of 1026 days, in filing the Writ Appeal.

¶26

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners/appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No.7 of the affidavit filed in support of this petition and would submit that after the impugned order dated 01.03.2017, passed in W.P.(MD).No.5841 of 2011, there was a bifurcation of office and therefore, there was some delay in despatching the records to the concerned office and in the light of the crucial question of law involved in this Writ Appeal and considering the reasons assigned, prays for condonation of delay with cost.

¶27

However, this petition is strongly opposed by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner by submitting that the delay is nearly three years and in the absence of any acceptable explanation, such a huge delay cannot be condoned and would submit that though the respondent/writ petitioner had awaited for nearly three years for implementation of the order, still it has not been done and therefore, he has been advised to file a petition for contempt.

¶28

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed on record.

¶29

The condonation of huge delay has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (i) Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & another reported in 2010 (5) SCC 459 and (ii) Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors., v. Living Media India Ltd & another reported in 2012 (3) SCC 563 and in both the decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had surveyed and considered its earlier decisions and found that in the event of gross negligence or deliberate inaction and lack of bona fides , the Court is not expected to take a liberal attitude in condoning such a huge delay, for the reason that the rights of the concerned parties have also to be taken into consideration.

¶30

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

¶31

2/4

¶32

C.M.P.(MD)No.890 of 2020 in

¶33

W.A.(MD).SR.No.3501 of 2020

¶34

As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner, the delay is administrative in nature and the petitioners/appellants/official respondents are ought to have acted with due diligence in filing the Writ Appeal, at least, with minimum delay. However, the present petition has been filed to condone the delay after nearly three years.

¶35

In the considered opinion of this Court, in the absence of any tenable, plausible or acceptable explanation, such a huge delay cannot be condoned.

¶36

At this juncture, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners/appellants/official respondents would submit that the question of law as to the interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.39, School Education (D1) Department, dated 21.03.2003, needs adjudication for the reason that this order may be cited as a precedent and in that event, the Government may face other litigations which would also involve financial implications.

¶37

This Court has heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner also.

¶38

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed and the Writ Appeal in W.A(MD)SR.No.3501 of 2020, stands rejected. It is also made clear that this Court is dismissing this petition for condonation of delay for want of plausible and acceptable reasons and did not go into the interpretation or otherwise of G.O.Ms.No.39, School Education (D1) Department, dated 21.03.2003, and therefore, this order need not be cited as a precedent.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

Assistant Registrar (Records)

¶41

// True Copy //

¶42

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶43

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶44

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

¶45

3/4

¶46

C.M.P.(MD)No.890 of 2020

¶47

¶48

W.A.(MD).SR.No.3501 of 2020

¶49

¶50