The court emphasized the need for a liberal and justice-oriented approach while considering applications for condonation of delay, but also highlighted the requirement to establish bona fide delay and absence of inaction or negligence.

1. This is a petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 955 days in filing the writ appeal against the order dated 27.01.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.34213 of 2006.

2. The impugned order was passed on 27.01.2010. It is stated that a copy of the same was received by the 4th petitioner on 11.5.2010. Thereafter, after about four months, a letter was sent to the second respondent, seeking instruction for compliance of the order. It appears that no steps, thereafter, were taken at the end of the second petitioner on several grounds mainly assembly election.

3. After a period of about 18 months, the second petitioner asked District Elementary Educational Officer, Nagercoil, vide communication dated 19.04.2012 to submit all relevant documents for implementation of the impugned order, which was submitted on 6.6.2012. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Nagercoil was informed by the third petitioner on 23.8.2012 about filing of the contempt petition for disobeying the said order passed by the writ court. Thereafter, it appears that steps were taken to contact the office of the Government Pleader for an opinion. Thereafter, a review was filed, which was dismissed on 23.11.2012.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that on the basis of the opinion of the Special Government Pleader, a writ appeal was prepared to file. Thus, there is a delay of 955 days in filing the writ appeal.

5. The petitioners filed the application on 12.04.2013. Thereafter, on the request of the petitioners, two weeks time was granted to file better additional affidavit, which could be filed only on 26.03.2014.

6. The aforestated reasons do not justify the condonation of delay, which is inordinate. It is well settled principles of law that while considering the application for condonation of delay, there should be a liberal, pragmatic and justice-oriented approach. However, if there is an inordinate delay, the petitioners, seeking condonation of delay, must disclose that the delay was bonafide and there was no inaction or negligence on their part. It is also necessary to establish that by such an inordinate delay, no right has accrued in favour of the other side and injustice would perpetuate if the delay is not condoned. The petitioners have miserably failed to establish the above stated principles in this case.

7. Indisputably, the State Government initiated steps for filing an appeal only after the contempt petition was filed, seeking compliance of the order passed by the writ court. Despite an opportunity granted to the petitioners to file additional affidavit, satisfying the aforestated principles, no case has been made out by the petitioners. Thus, we have no other option except to reject the petitioner for condonation of delay.

8. As a result, the miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeal is rejected at the SR stage itself.