Union Territory of Puducherry, Vs The Central Administrative — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Union Territory of Puducherry, Vs The Central Administrative — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 1815 days in filing the review petition condoned; W.M.P.No.22520 of 2018 in Rev.Aplw.No.SR.47507 of 2018 ordered accordingly; Registry directed to number the Review Petition if the papers are otherwise in order; respondents' grounds to be adjudicated at the hearing of the review petition.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1815 days in filing the review petition should be condoned.

Court's answer

The delay did not occur at the instance of the review petitioners but on account of the pendency of the S.L.P before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; the review petitioners had approached the Apex Court in time, leave was granted, and the Apex Court granted liberty to file the review, so the court found merit and was inclined to condone the delay.

Ratio / Principle

The delay of 1815 days in filing the review petition stands condoned and the writ miscellaneous petition in W.M.P.No.22520 of 2018 in Rev.Aplw.No.SR.47507 of 2018 is ordered accordingly.

Key takeaways

Registry is directed to number the Review Petition if the papers are otherwise in order; the grounds raised on behalf of the respondents are to be adjudicated at the time of hearing of the review petition.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Division Bench of S.M. Subramaniam and M. Jothiraman, JJ.), by order dated 02.01.2025, condoned a delay of 1815 days in filing a review petition against a writ order of the year 2013. The court held that there was no actual delay attributable to the review petitioners (Government of Puducherry), since they had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in time by filing S.L.P.(C).No.21169 of 2015; leave was granted and the matter was heard as C.A.No.017000/2017, which the Supreme Court disposed of on 24th October 2017 granting liberty to file a review before the High Court. The delay was thus occasioned by the pendency of the S.L.P., not at the instance of the review petitioners. The writ miscellaneous petition was allowed, the Registry was directed to number the Review Petition if the papers were otherwise in order, and the respondents' objections were left to be adjudicated at the hearing of the review petition.

W.M.P.No.22520 of 2018 in Rev.Aplw.No.SR47507 of 2018 in W.P.No.23187 of 2018

W.M.P.No.22520 of 2018 in Rev.Aplw.No.SR47507 of 2018 in W.P.No.23187 of 2010

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

The present writ miscellaneous petition has been instituted to condone the delay of 1815 days in filing the Review Petition.

The learned Government Pleader (Puducherry) would submit that there is no actual delay in filing the review petition, since the review petitioners have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by filing S.L.P.(C).No.21169 of 2015 in time. Leave granted and C.A.No.017000/2017 was taken up for hearing and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India disposed off the matter on 24^th October 2017, granting liberty to the review petitioner to file a review before the High Court. However, the delay has been calculated from the date, on which, the writ order has been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the year 2013.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 4

W.M.P.No.22520 of 2018 in Rev.Aplw.No.SR47507 of 2018 in W.P.No.23187 of 2018

The review petitioners approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India within the time limit and the Apex Court entertained the S.L.P and by granting leave, heard C.A.No.017000 of 2017 and thereafter passed an order, granting liberty to the Government of Puducherry to file a review petition, the delay not occurred at the instance of the review petitioner, but on account of the pendency of the S.L.P before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Thus, we are inclined to consider the present miscellaneous petition.

The learned counsel for the respondents would object by stating that

the delay is enormous and therefore, the present condone delay petition is to be rejected.

The grounds raised on behalf of the respondents are to be

adjudicated at the time of hearing of the review petition. As far as the delay in filing the review petition is concerned, we find merit and thus, we are inclined to consider the present miscellaneous petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 4

W.M.P.No.22520 of 2018 in Rev.Aplw.No.SR47507 of 2018 in W.P.No.23187 of 2018

Accordingly, the delay of 1815 days in filing the review petition

stands condoned and the writ miscellaneous petition in W.M.P.No.22520 of

2018 in Rev.Aplw.No.SR.47507 of 2018 is ordered accordingly.

Registry is directed to number the Review Petition, if the papers are

otherwise in order.

[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.] 02.01.2025

Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking order / Non-speaking order

kak

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 4

W.M.P.No.22520 of 2018 in Rev.Aplw.No.SR47507 of 2018 in W.P.No.23187 of 2018

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

kak

W.M.P.No.22520 of 2018 in Rev.Aplw.No.SR47507 of 2018

02.01.2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 4