The High Court dismissed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition praying for condonation of a 2937-day delay in filing a Writ Appeal. The court held that pending surcharge proceedings were not a valid ground to explain the inordinate delay.
Condonation of delay of 2937 days denied; Writ Appeal rejected at S.R. stage.
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: 03.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
A.M. Shanmugasundaram
... Petitioner/Appellant
Vs.
Prayer in C.M.P. No.10352 of 2021: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2937 days in preferring W.A.Sr.No.55814 of 2021.
Prayer in W.A.Sr.No.55814 of 2021: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 30.01.2012 in W.P.No.22881 of 2007 and consequently direct the first respondent to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner under section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947 on its merits and in accordance with law and pass orders within the time frame stipulated by this Court.
Prayer in W.P.No.22881 of 2007: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 30.06.2006 in TSE No.1/1A/1/2006 passed by the 1st respondent Quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to take up the Petitioner main appeal on file and decide the same on merits, within a specified time as may be fixed by this court by condoning the delay of 437 days.
For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas
For Respondent-1 : Court For Respondent-2 : Mr.A.Selvendran
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of Court was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.]
W.P.No.22881 of 2007 was filed by the appellant/writ petitioner to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 30.06.2006 and consequently to direct the first respondent to take up the main appeal on file by condoning the delay of 437 days and decide the same on merits.
“ 9. One can understand if a person has moved other forums or before the correct forum where the remedy may be time consuming, then naturally, all those period of delay can be excluded, but in the present case right from day one the petitioner was aware of his legal remedies as he was holding the status of Branch Manager and the Special Officer himself advised him to prefer an appeal under Section 153 of the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act. It is the admission of the petitioner himself that his family members and his relatives persuaded him not to avail any statutory remedies, if that is so, the petitioner has to suffer for such wrong advise or wrong pressure on him. It is not the case that he is not aware of legal rights and subsequently, if he came to know about his rights then leniency can be shown. But in this case, even the materials produced before the authority does not satisfactorily explain the reasons for the delay and this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the findings rendered by the authority under the Tamilnadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. There will be no order as to
costs.”
Against the said order, the present appeal is filed with a delay of 2937 days.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
srn
To
+1cc to Mr.A.Selvendran, Advocate, S.R.No.44520
C.M.P.No.10352 of 2021 in W.A.Sr.No.55814 of 2021
MG(CO) SU(24/09/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the condonation of delay of 2937 days in filing the Writ Appeal is warranted given the reasons assigned.
Whether pendency of surcharge proceedings constitutes a just and sufficient cause to condone the delay.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
A.M. Shanmugasundaram
The Special Deputy Commissioner, Labour, The Appellate Authority, Under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947
The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Puspha Sathyanarayana
Krishnan Ramasamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
