Dismissed¶54

T.Venkatesan v. The Director General of Police

Madras HC14 Oct 2025WPMP Crl./216/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; restoration petition; dismissal for default; sufficient cause; vague reasons, no materials; no liberal approach as of right; 'no cause' vs 'sufficient cause'; Section 226 Constitution of India; transfer of investigation to CBCID; IOB Kundrathur Branch loan demand notice; complaint dated 21.08.2023; misconceived and vexatious writ; Madras High Court; WPMP Crl. No. 216 of 2025; WP No. 39853 of 2024; N. Sathish Kumar, J.; order dated 14-10-2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the condonation petition was dismissed as devoid of merits with no costs, leaving the restoration petition unentertained. ¶54

T.Venkatesan Vs The Director General of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; the condonation petition was dismissed as devoid of merits with no costs, leaving the restoration petition unentertained.

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 131 days in filing the restoration petition against the order dated 02.01.2025 dismissing WP No. 39853 of 2024 should be condoned. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

The delay of 131 days stands unexplained: counsel's accident and hospitalisation during Christmas vacation 2024 explained his absence on 02.01.2025 but the petitioner gave no reason for the delay in timely filing the restoration petition and produced no materials, only vague reasons; where delay is not explained and unsubstantiated, no liberal approach is due as a matter of right — 'no cause' cannot be treated as 'sufficient cause'. Condonation accordingly refused.

¶40

Key takeaways

In passing, the Court observed that the underlying writ petition (seeking police investigation/direction regarding a person who received a loan, based on an IOB, Kundrathur Branch demand notice allegedly causing the petitioner's mother's death by haemorrhage) was misconceived and its prayer extraneous and vexatious; the bank stated the amount had already been paid and the loan closed; hence, even if the condonation petition were allowed, no further direction would be required in the writ petition.obiter¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Sathish Kumar, J.), order dated 14-10-2025 in WPMP Crl. No. 216 of 2025 in WP No. 39853 of 2024, dismissed a petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India seeking condonation of a 131-day delay in filing a restoration petition against the dismissal-for-default of WP No. 39853 of 2024 by order dated 02.01.2025. The only explanation offered was that counsel Mr. P. Suresh Kumar met with an accident during Christmas vacation 2024 and was hospitalised; the Court found the petitioner had given no reason for the delay in filing the restoration petition on time and no materials to substantiate it, only vague reasons, and held that where delay is unexplained and unsubstantiated no liberal approach is due as a matter of right — 'no cause' cannot be treated as 'sufficient cause'. Observing further that the underlying writ petition, which sought transfer of a complaint dated 21.08.2023 (concerning an IOB, Kundrathur Branch loan demand notice said to have caused the petitioner's mother's death by haemorrhage) to CBCID, was misconceived and its prayer extraneous and vexatious, and that the bank had stated the amount was paid and the loan closed, the Court said no further direction would be required even if the petition were allowed. Petition dismissed, no costs.

¶1

WPMP Crl. No. 216 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14-10-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

WPMP Crl. No. 216 of 2025

¶7

AND

¶8

WP NO. 39853 OF 2024

¶9

T.Venkatesan Appellant(s)

¶10

¶11

The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600004.

¶12

2.The Commissioner of Police, Tamabaram Commissionerate, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600119.

¶13

3.The Inspector of Police, (Crime ) Kundrathur Police Station, Respondent(s) Kanchipuram District - 600069.

¶14

WP No. 39853 of 2024

¶15

T.Venkatesan Petitioner(s)

¶16

¶17

The Director General Of Police Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore, Chennai 600 004

¶18

2.The Commissioner Of Police Tambaram Commissionerate, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119

¶19

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

¶20

WPMP Crl. No. 216 of 2025

¶21

3.The Inspector Of Police (crime) Kundrathur Police Station, Kanchipuram District 600 069

¶22

Respondent(s)

¶23

WPMP Crl. No. 216 of 2025

¶24

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, to Condone the delay of 131 days in preferring the restoration petition against the order of this Hon'ble Court in WP.NO.39853/2024 dated 02.01.2025.

¶25

WP No. 39853 of 2024

¶26

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, to d irect the 1st respondent to transfer the case in complaint dated 21.08.2023 from the file of the 2nd respondent to some other investigating agency preferably to CBCID and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law and pass

¶27

WPMP Crl. No. 216 of 2025

¶28

For Appellant(s): M/s.P.Suresh Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 131 days in preferring

¶31

the restoration petition against the order of this Court in the above writ petition

¶32

dated 02.01.2025.

¶33

When the above writ petition was taken up for hearing on 02.01.2025,

¶34

there was no representation of the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition was

¶35

dismissed default.

¶36

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

¶37

WPMP Crl. No. 216 of 2025

¶38

The reasons assigned in the petition is to the effect that the petitioner

¶39

engaged one advocate namely Mr.P.Suresh Kumar, he met with an accident during Christmas vacation, 2024 and was hospitalised, therefore, the counsel

¶40

could not appear before this Court. However, the petitioner has not stated any reasons for the delay in filing the restoration petition on time and even there is no materials whatsoever to substantiate the same and only vague reasons are placed before this Court. Therefore, once the delay has not been explained and no documents are produced to substantiate the cause of delay, as a matter of right, the petitioner should not be shown any liberal approach. When there is 'no

¶41

cause' for the delay, it cannot be treated as 'sufficient case'.

¶42

It is also to be noted that the very writ petition has been filed seeking

¶43

for a direction to the police to investigate against the person who has received a

¶44

loan. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner's mother received a demand notice from IOB, Kundrathur Branch that there was a due of loan, on

¶45

shock, she suffered haemorrhage and died. Hence, seeks for direction to the

¶46

first respondent to transfer the case to other agency. At the outset, this Court is

¶47

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

¶48

WPMP Crl. No. 216 of 2025

¶49

of the view that the very writ petition is misconceived and the prayer appears to

¶50

be extraneous and vexatious. Be that as it may, now, the bank has also stated