Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, JJ.
The District Elementary Educational Officer, Namakkal & Another – Appellants
Versus
SBM Primary School, rep. By its Correspondent, Namakkal – Respondent
CMP No. 6921 of 2020 & WA No. SR 37662 of 2020
Decided On : 22-08-2023
Delay Condonation - Writ Appeal - The court rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal, citing lack of sufficient cause for the inordinate delay and absence of cogent reasons, except administrative reasons.
Fact of the Case:
The application was filed to condone an inordinate delay of 911 days in filing the writ appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the application for condonation of delay, as no sufficient cause was established for the delay, and only administrative reasons were cited.
Issues: Delay condonation, lack of sufficient cause for delay
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that administrative reasons were not sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the writ appeal.
Final Decision: The application for condonation of delay and the writ appeal were both rejected by the court.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: CMP No.6921 of 2020 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 911 days in filing WA No.SR 37662 of 2020. WA No.SR 37662 of 2020 filed against the order dated 28.07.2017 in WP No.19560 of 2004)
Sanjay v. Gangapurwala, J.
1. Heard Mr.Silambannan, learned Additional Advocate-General for the applicants and Mr.R.D.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the non-applicant.
2. This is an application filed for condonation of an inordinate delay of 911 days in filing the writ appeal.
3. The application is strongly opposed by the non-applicant. One of the grounds raised is that the applicants have singled out the present non-applicant and that they have not proceeded against other similarly situated persons.
4. Learned Additional Advocate-General, on instructions, is not in a position to dispute the said statement. Moreover, we do not find cogent reasons being made out so as to construe the same as sufficient cause. Except administrative reasons, no other reason has been spelt-out for the inordinate delay.
5. In light of the above, CMP No.6921 of 2020 is rejected. Consequently, WA No.SR 37662 of 2020 is also rejected. There will be no order as to costs.
Administrative reasons alone are not sufficient cause for inordinate delay in filing an appeal.
Though the Courts are required to weigh scale of balance of justice in respect of both the parties, the said principle cannot be given a total good-bye in the name of liberal approach.
An inordinate delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned as a matter of right without providing sufficient and satisfactory justification or cause for the delay.
Administrative lethargy and bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delays by state in filing appeals; bona fides and vigilance required.
Administrative lethargy, procedural red-tape, or bureaucratic negligence within government departments do not constitute 'sufficient cause' to condone inordinate delay in filing appeals under the Lim....
The State is not entitled to preferential treatment or leniency regarding the law of limitation; administrative lethargy and bureaucratic delay do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of d....
Delay in filing appeals must be justified with adequate reasons; mere assertion of procedural mishaps is insufficient for condonation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
