Allowed

The Principal Secretary to Government v. S.Lakshmanan

Madras HC19 Feb 2025CMP(MD)/399/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Government sought condonation of a 146-day delay in filing a writ appeal against respondents including the Teachers Recruitment Board. The court condoned the delay, with no objection from respondents, subject to payment of Rs.500 as costs to the High Court Legal Services Committee, failing which the petition stands dismissed automatically.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 146 days condoned on payment of Rs.500 costs to High Court Legal Services Committee.

The Principal Secretary to Government Vs S.Lakshmanan — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CMP(MD) No.399 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Wednesday, the Nineteenth day of February 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.399 of 2025 in

¶8

WA(MD)No.SR1314 of 2025

¶9

1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI - 600009.

¶10

2 THE DIRECTOR

¶11

THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, EVK SAMPATH MAALIGAI, DPI CAMPUS, NUNGAMPAKKAM,

¶12

CHENNAI - 600006.

¶13

... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS

1 S.LAKSHMANAN

2 HELEN.J

3 PREMALATHA.S

4 A.ELANGO

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

¶20

1/3

¶21

CMP(MD) No.399 of 2025

5 VIJAYALEKSHMI.A

6 KAVIN.S

7 SUNDAR.S

8 P.VASANTHI

9 THE CHAIRMAN TEACHERS RECRUITMENT BOARD, 4TH FLOOR EVK SAMPATH MAALIGAI, DPI CAMPUS, NUNGAMPAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600006. ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶27

For Appellants : Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader

¶28

For Respondent : Mr.S.Louis, Advocate for R 1 to 8 Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, Advocate for R9

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This petition is filed to condone the delay of 146 days in filing the above Writ Appeal.

¶31

2.Heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶32

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 for condoning the delay, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 146 days, however, on payment of costs.

¶33

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

¶34

2/3

¶35

CMP(MD) No.399 of 2025

¶36

4.Accordingly, this petition is allowed 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.

¶37

sd/19/02/2025 / TRUE COPY / /02/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶38

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

ORDER IN CMP(MD) No.399 of 2025 in WA(MD)No.SR1314 of 2025 Date :19/02/2025

¶42

SS/VR/SAR- /26/02/2025/ 3P/2C

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

3/3

The Principal Secretary to Government v. S.Lakshmanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal Secretary to Government v. S.Lakshmanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Tamilnadu Vs Packiyalakshmi

R.Stanley Vs The District Collector / Monitoring Committee

The Commissioner of School Education, Vs The Crescent Higher Secondary School

Teachers Recruitment Board Vs Jefry Stairish

Abudhahir Vs The Commissioner

P.Murugan Vs The Commissioner