Government educational officers sought condonation of a 766-day delay in filing a writ appeal against an order in a school-related writ petition. The court found the explanation vague and lacking diligence, dismissed the condonation petition, and rejected the writ appeal at the S.R. stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
C.M.P.(MD)No.15948 of 2025 and
W.A.(MD)No. SR 81302 of 2025
... Petitioners
Vs.
... Respondents
PRAYER in C.M.P.(MD)No.15948 of 2025:- Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 766 days in filing the writ appeal against the impguned order dated 19.07.2023 passed in W.P. (MD)No.882 of 2021.
1/6
PRAYER in W.A.(MD)No.SR 81302 of 2025:- Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in W.P.(MD)No.882 of 2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : Ms.A.Amala (R1) No Appearance (R2)
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
This petition is filed seeking to condone the delay of 766 days in filing the above writ appeal.
affidavit are bereft of details. The reasons to condone the delay must be bona fide. Simply on the ground of administrative delay, as a matter of right, the Court cannot presume sufficient cause.
2/6
420, wherein the Division Bench of this has held as follows:
“... Though the delay is condoned by the Court normally in a liberal manner, the said approach cannot be extended mechanically without any plausible explanation. What is pitted against an ordinary litigant is also pitted against the Government before Court of law to establish a particular fact. Though the word ? sufficient cause? has to be given a liberal approach, to exercise discretion ? for such liberal approach, there must be necessary facts in the affidavit filed in support of the same. But, on a perusal of the affidavit, we do not find plausible explanation for such delay except stating that there is an administrative delay. Such vague and bald explanation cannot be accepted mechanically. When Courts are extending such liberal approach mechanically, it has become a routine affairs of the Government Departments to file the appeals against every order passed by the Court. The present day scenario in filing the appeal, challenging every order by the Government Departments, clearly exhibits shirking responsibility of the Department Heads. In fact, now the tendency has developed among the Department Heads, not to take any risk and to avoid any question relate to the litigant and only in order to avoid any query, the administrative side files these types of appeals, though there is no merit in the appeal.”
3/6
4/6
delay. Hence, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, Writ Appeal is also rejected at the S.R.stage itself. No costs.
[N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.] 11.03.2026
Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ta
5/6
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ta
C.M.P.(MD)No.15948 of 2025 and W.A.(MD)No. SR 81302 of 2025
11.03.2026
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a delay of 766 days in filing a writ appeal, explained only as administrative reasons, should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Tamil Nadu and Ors Vs. Melvisharam Muslim Educational SocietyRelied on¶4
2018 [3] CTC 420
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The District Educational Officer, Thoothukudi
The Block Educational Officer-II, Ottapidaram
Jeslin
The Correspondent, R.C.Primary School, Kallathikinaru
N.Sathish Kumar
M.Jothiraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
