Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ, G.ARUL MURUGAN
State of Tamil Nadu – Appellant
Versus
G. Ramya Devi D/o S. Gandhiraj – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.
1. In support of the prayer seeking condonation of delay of 388 days, all that has been stated in the affidavit is as below:
“14. I submit that, the copy of the order in W.P. No.14118 of 2024 dated 24.05.2024 was received only on 28.06.2024 and thereafter the present writ appeal is filed after getting sanction from all the authorities and verifying the records. However there is a delay of 388 days in filing the writ appeal. The said delay is neither willful nor wanton but purely administrative. Unless this Honourable court condones the delay of 388 days in filing the appeal great prejudice will be caused.”
2. 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.
3. 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. vs. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654, it was found that the appeal filed by the State was with delay of 663
State bodies must provide substantial reasons for delay in legal filings, as administrative inefficiencies do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation.
Administrative inefficiencies alone do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delays, and government entities must demonstrate diligence in litigation.
The court emphasized that administrative inaction does not justify delay in legal proceedings, and that adequate cause must be shown, especially by State authorities.
Government agencies must provide sufficient justification for delays in legal filings; bureaucratic inefficiencies are not valid grounds for condonation of delay.
State authorities are held to strict standards in explaining delays in litigation; administrative lethargy is insufficient for condoning delays.
Sufficient cause for condonation of delay must be established; administrative inefficiencies are not valid grounds for extending time limits.
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
