Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, C.J., G.ARUL MURUGAN
Assistant Director Handlooms and Textiles – Appellant
Versus
S.Hemachandran, S/o. S.Sundaramoorthy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, C.J.
Heard on condonation of delay of 260 days in filing the appeal.
2. The reasons stated for the delay, as stated in paragraph 12, reads as under:
“12. I submit that there is a delay in filing this writ appeal. The reason for the delay is, the second Appellant is serving as administrator for 4 more societies in full additional charge. Moreover I submit that the second Appellant was appointed as nodal officer for carrying out Arani silk park DTCP approval works. Because of the administrative reasons, the appeal could not be filed in time. Therefore, the delay in filing the writ appeal is neither willful nor wanton.”
3. To say the least, no cause, much less sufficient cause, has been shown. It appears that the officials concerned dealing with the files were completely indolent and sat over the matter without doing anything.
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in umpteen number of judgments, held that the period of limitation is required to be explained by the State and it does not stand on any exalted position.
(i) In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. V. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654 it was found that the appeal filed by the State was with delay of
Administrative inefficiencies alone do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delays, and government entities must demonstrate diligence in litigation.
State bodies must provide substantial reasons for delay in legal filings, as administrative inefficiencies do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation.
Government agencies must provide sufficient justification for delays in legal filings; bureaucratic inefficiencies are not valid grounds for condonation of delay.
The court emphasized that administrative inaction does not justify delay in legal proceedings, and that adequate cause must be shown, especially by State authorities.
Sufficient cause for condonation of delay must be established; administrative inefficiencies are not valid grounds for extending time limits.
State authorities are held to strict standards in explaining delays in litigation; administrative lethargy is insufficient for condoning delays.
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
