Dismissed

The District Collector v. Lakshmi.a

Madras HC28 Aug 2024WMP(MD)/6320/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Government officers sought condonation of an 85-day delay in filing a review application against an earlier High Court order, citing administrative reasons and staff transfers. The court found the explanations inadequate for each day's delay and refused to condone it.

What did the court decide?

Delay not condoned; miscellaneous petition dismissed and review application rejected at SR stage.

The District Collector Vs Lakshmi.a — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WMP(MD)No.6320 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 28.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WMP(MD)No.6320 of 2024 in

¶7

Rev.Aplw(MD)No.SR21403 of 2024

¶8

1.The District Collector,

¶9

Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶10

2.The Block Development Officer, Kalayarkovil Panchayat Union, Sivagangai District.

¶11

3.The Panchayat President, Maravamangalam Village Panchayat, Kalayarkovil Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶12

: Petitioners

¶13

Vs.

¶14

1.A.Lakshmi D/o.Alagu

¶15

2.Lakshmi

¶16

W/o.Rakkappan

¶17

: Respondents

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

1/4

¶20

WMP(MD)No.6320 of 2024

¶21

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone

¶22

the delay of 85 days in filing the review application as against the order dated 29.09.2023 made in WP(MD)No.20304 of 2022.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader *****

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This application is filed to condone the delay of 85 days in filing the review application to review the order passed by this Court in WP(MD)No. 20304 of 2022, dated 29.09.2023.

¶26

2.In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the second respondent / Block Development Officer has averred as follows:-

¶27

“9. ... The original order received by our office on 14.11.2023. I further state that the above said order copy was communicated to the higher officials. Due to the administrative reasons and frequent transfer of officials, we were unable to contact the Government Pleader concerned and therefore, we could not file the above review application in time. After I approached the Additional Advocate General-III and got the legal opinion on 09.12.2023 and after getting the instructions from our higher officials, we prefer the present review application. The delay is

¶28

2/4

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

WMP(MD)No.6320 of 2024

¶31

neither wilful nor wanton but due to the above said administrative reasons. ...”

¶32

3.This Court is not satisfied with the reasons assigned by the petitioners for the delay. The petitioners have failed to offer the reasons for each day's delay.

¶33

4.Therefore, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, this miscellaneous petition stands dismissed. Consequently,

¶34

the review application, which is in SR stage, stands rejected.

¶35

Internet : Yes 28.08.2024 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No

¶36

¶37

3/4

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

WMP(MD)No.6320 of 2024

¶40

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶41

¶42

WMP(MD)No.6320 of 2024 in Rev.Aplw(MD)No.SR21403 of 2024

¶43

28.08.2024

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

4/4

The District Collector v. Lakshmi.a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The District Collector v. Lakshmi.a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seth Daniraj Basinger Vs The Inspector of Police (L and O)

N.Pitchandi Vs the Principal Secretary

Hari Rajendran .G Vs The Tahsildar

Praveenkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Ponnappan, Vs the Presiding Officer

Assistant Engineer, Vs v. Thangammal, W/O.Velandi