Allowed

The Chief Educational Officer v. G.Arunadevi

Madras HC6 Mar 2025CMP(MD)/15605/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to condone a 64-day delay in filing a writ appeal against respondents including an educational officer. The court found the reasons satisfactory and noted no objection from respondents. Delay was condoned subject to payment of Rs.500 costs to the High Court Legal Services Committee, failing which the petition would stand dismissed automatically.

What did the court decide?

64-day delay in filing writ appeal condoned on payment of Rs.500/- costs to High Court Legal Services Committee.

The Chief Educational Officer Vs G.Arunadevi — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CMP(MD) No.15605 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Sixth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Five

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU and

¶6

The HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶7

CMP(MD) No.15605 of 2023

¶8

¶9

WA(MD)No.SR 84461 of 2023

¶10

1 THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER (SECONDARY), TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS

¶12

¶13

1 G.ARUNADEVI

¶14

2 THE SECRETARY THE M.D.T HINDU COLLEGE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, TIRUNELVELI,

¶15

TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶17

For Petitioner : M/S.J.ASHOK, Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.V.PANNEER SELVAM, Advocate for R1 Mr.R.T.ARIVUKUMAR, Advocate for R2

¶18

1/3

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

CMP(MD) No.15605 of 2023

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)

¶23

This petition is filed to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the above Writ Appeal.

¶24

2.Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶25

3.Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition and taking into consideration that the respondents have got no objection to condone the delay, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 64 days, however, on payment of costs.

¶26

4.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the delay is condoned on payment of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) to the High Court Legal Services Committee attached to this Bench forthwith on receipt of a copy of this order, failing which this petition will be dismissed automatically without any further reference to this Court.

¶27

sd/06/03/2025 / TRUE COPY /

¶28

/04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶29

¶30

2/3

¶31

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

¶32

CMP(MD) No.15605 of 2023

¶33

¶34

THE OFFICER INCHARGE, HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶35

ORDER IN CMP(MD) No.15605 of 2023 in WA(MD)No.SR 84461 of 2023 Date :06/03/2025

¶36

SS/VR/SAR- /03/04/2025/ 3P/2C

¶37

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023

¶38

3/3

¶39

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

The Chief Educational Officer v. G.Arunadevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Educational Officer v. G.Arunadevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Transport Commissioner Vs R.Ravichandran

Velraj Vs The District Collector

The Managing Director Vs G. Parthasarathy

N.Balavenkatesh Vs The Director/Distribution

The District Collector Vs T. Cibi Chakraborthy

K.Gunalan Vs The District Collector