Allowed¶27

The Project Director, v. R. Vijay Sankar

Madras HC23 Oct 2025CMP(MD)/12959/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; CMP(MD) No. 12959 of 2022; CMP(MD) No. 1455 of 2025; Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; NHAI Project Director, National Highways 45E and 220; 221 days delay; 677 days delay; CMA Sr. No. 2017 of 2023; CMA Sr. No. 66542/2022; administrative reasons; bifurcation of sections; change of officers; Coordinate Bench precedent; delay condoned; Registry to take appeals on file.

What did the court decide?

Both condonation petitions allowed; delay of 221 days (CMA Sr. No. 2017 of 2023) and 677 days (CMA Sr. No. 66542/2022) condoned; Registry directed to take the appeals on file if otherwise in order. ¶27

The Project Director, Vs R. Vijay Sankar — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CMP(MD) NO. 12959 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23-10-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN AND

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶3

CMP(MD) NO. 12959 of 2022 AND

¶4

CMP(MD) NO. 1455 OF 2025

¶5

The Project Director, National Highways No. 45E and 220, National High Ways Authority of India having his Office at Plot No.3, Siroua Towers, 2nd Floor, 1st East Street, K.K.Nagar (Near Muthuvelrajan Hospital), Madurai - 625020. Presently as Plot No. 1, Aishwaryam Heights Indira Nagar, 1st Street Sennamanaickenpatti (PO), Thadikombu Road, Dindigul - 624004.

¶6

Petitioner(s)

¶7

¶8

R. Vijay Sankar, S/o. M. Ramasamy, D.No. 24, Thalayari Ramasamy St, Chinnamanur, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni district. and another

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

CMP(MD) NO. 1455 of 2025

¶11

The Project Director National Highways No.45 E and 220, National Highways Authority of India having his office at Plot No.3, Suriya Towers, 2nd Floor, 1st East Street, K.K.Nagar (Near Muthuvelrajan Hospital), Madurai - 625 020. Presently at Plot No.1, Aishwaryam Heights, Indira Nagar, 1st Street Sennamanaickenpatti (PO), Thadikombu Road, Dindigul - 624 004.

¶12

Petitioner(s)

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

N.Chinnakaruppan (Died),

¶16

Palaniammal National Highways No.45 E and 220, National Highways Authority of India having his office at Plot No.3, Suriya Towers, 2nd Floor, 1st East Street, K.K.Nagar (Near Muthuvelrajan Hospital), Madurai - 625 020. Presently at Plot No.1, Aishwaryam Heights, Indira Nagar, 1st Street Sennamanaickenpatti (PO), Thadikombu Road, Dindigul - 624 004. and another

¶17

Respondent(s)

¶18

For Petitioner(s): M/s.Su.Srinivasan For Respondent(s): M/s. R.Govindaraj M/s.A.Baskaran, Addl. Govt. Pleader Takes Notice For R2

¶19

Common Prayer: To Condone the delay of 221 and 677 days respectively in filing the CMA Sr Nos. 2017 of 2023 and 66542/2022.

¶20

COMMON ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan J.)

¶22

Though the petitioner filed these applications to condone the delay of 221 and 677 days respectively in filing the appeals, in the affidavit filed in support of these petitions, the petitioner has stated in Paragraph No.17 that due to administrative reasons in bifurcation of the sections and also the change of officers, the delay has occurred.

¶23

The learned counsel would submit that in similar matters, Coordinate Bench of this Court had condoned the delay and therefore, prays for allowing these applications.

¶24

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

¶25

The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the reasons assigned by the petitioner are not valid reasons to condone the inordinate delay and a Coordinate Bench of this Court in similar matters dismissed the applications for condonation of delay and hence, prays for dismissal.

¶26

We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

The petitioner has filed these applications to condone the delay of 221 and 677 days in preferring the appeals. Similar petitions filed for condoning the delay were allowed by Coordinate Bench of this Court and hence, being satisfied with the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the petitions, these petitions are allowed and the delay is condoned. The Registry is directed to take the appeal on file, if it is otherwise in order.

¶28

(P.VELMURUGAN J.) (L.VICTORIA GOWRI J.)

¶29

23-10-2025

¶30

¶31

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

The Project Director, v. R. Vijay Sankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Project Director, v. R. Vijay Sankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pasupathi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, The Inspector of Police

M.Vijayaramamoorthy Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Linciya Vs Isakkiraj

The General Manager, Vs Manimegalai

A.Jerold Vs K.Nikil Surya

The Manager Vs Prabhakaran