The Madras High Court dismissed a condonation of delay petition seeking to file a Writ Appeal. The court found the reasons for the 88-day delay, citing administrative hurdles, to be insufficient and nonspecific.
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.
C.M.P.(MD)No.10466 of 2024 in W.A.(MD)SR.No.51280 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
C.M.P.(MD)No.10466 of 2024 in
W.A.(MD)SR.No.51280 of 2024
-vs-
... Respondents / Respondents
PRAYER in C.M.P.(MD)No.10466 of 2024: Petition filed under Under
Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 88 days in filing
the Writ Appeal against the order in W.P.(MD)No.19772 of 2021, dated 07.12.2023.
Page 1 of 4
C.M.P.(MD)No.10466 of 2024 in W.A.(MD)SR.No.51280 of 2024
PRAYER in W.A.(MD)No.SR51280 of 2024 : Writ Appeal filed under
Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order made in W.P.(MD)No. 19772 of 2021 dated 07.12.2023.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam, Government Advocate For 1st Respondent : Mr.J.Anand Kumar
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
Though the delay is only 88 days, the reasons assigned for the delay is far from convincing. Para no.7, which assigns reasons for the delay reads as follows:-
“I submit that, the impugned order copy was received on 22.03.2024 however, due to unforeseen administrative reasons, including delays in obtaining the necessary documentation and procedural hurdles, the Petitioners encountered significant challenges in preparing and filing the appeal petition before this Hon'ble Court. These administrative delays were beyond the control of the Petitioners. I humbly submit that the delay of 88 days in filling the appeal petition was not a result of negligence or indifference on their part, but rather a consequence of circumstances beyond their control. Throughout the period of delay, the Petitioners diligently pursued the necessary steps to initiate the appeal process and getting opinion from the law officers in filing the writ appeal.”
Page 2 of 4
C.M.P.(MD)No.10466 of 2024 in W.A.(MD)SR.No.51280 of 2024
2.We find it absolutely insufficient for condonation of delay. Hence, the Condone Delay Petition is dismissed. The Writ Appeal in W.A. (MD)No.SR51280 of 2024 stands rejected in the SR stage itself. No Costs.
[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.] 18.09.2024
NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes Mrn
To
The Divisional Manager, Southern Railways, Madurai.
Page 3 of 4
C.M.P.(MD)No.10466 of 2024 in W.A.(MD)SR.No.51280 of 2024
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Mrn
C.M.P.(MD)No.10466 of 2024 in W.A.(MD)SR.No.51280 of 2024
18.09.2024
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 88 days in filing the Writ Appeal can be condoned based on administrative reasons.
Whether the reasons assigned for the delay are sufficient to grant relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The District Collector, Trichy District
The Divisional Manager, Southern Railways, Madurai
R. Subramanian
L. Victoria Gowri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
