Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, C.J., G.ARUL MURUGAN
District Collector, Vellore District. – Appellant
Versus
Venkatesan, S/o. Kannan – Respondent
ORDER :
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, C.J.)
Heard on application for condonation of delay of 194 days in filing the appeal.
2. The reasons stated for the delay, in paragraph 17 of the affidavit, reads as under:
“I respectfully submit that subsequent to the passing of the impugned order on 14.02.2025 the Writ Petition again came up for ‘being mentioned' on 16.04.2025. Subsequently, on receipt of the order copy, the Appellants had sought for legal advice regarding further course of action to be initiated by the Appellants in furtherance of the impugned order and after due consultations it was decided to file an appeal against the said impugned order. I further submit that on receipt of legal advice the Writ Appeal was drafted, approval obtained and the same was filed before this Hon'ble Court. ln these processes of intra and inter departmental correspondence and communication there has occurred a delay in filing this Writ Appeal.”
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 ju
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.
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.
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
