Government agencies are subject to the same rules of limitation as ordinary litigants, and administrative delays are insufficient grounds for condonation of delay.

JUDGMENT

(Order of the Court was made by C.KUMARAPPAN, J.)

The present writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.M.P(MD)No.6517 of 2025, dated 20.08.2025 by and in which, the learned single Judge has dismissed the delay condonation application filed along with the unnumbered Review Application.

2.The facts in so far as material and relating to the controversies are as follows; the respondent herein has preferred a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.265 of 2024 claiming Selection Grade Pay. The learned single Judge, vide order dated 06.03.2024, has allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved with the same, the appellants herein has preferred the writ appeal in W.A(MD)No.1197 of 2024, but later on they withdrew the same on 23.07.2024, and as a result of which, the same was dismissed as withdrawn. After withdrawal of the Writ Appeal, the appellants herein again preferred a review application, before the learned single Judge with the delay of 350 days. The learned single Judge, after having considered the submission of the appellant, has dismissed the said delay condonation application, and has held that such application was filed only to protract the proceedings and to prevent the respondents herein from enjoying the fruits of the order. Aggrieved with the same, the present writ appeal has been filed.

3.When the matter was heard by us on 19.09.2025, we have observed as follows:

“Prima facie, we are disinclined to entertain this writ appeal, seeing as the challenge is to an order of the learned single Judge dismissing a review petition on account of the enormous delay of 350 days. We are hence to look at the reasons that had been set out by the Transport Corporation explaining the delay of 350 days. This takes us to paragraph 11 of the petition filed wherein the Transport Corporation states that the files were placed before the Board of Directors and on instructions, placed before the learned Standing Counsel for legal opinion, after obtaining which, the review was filed.

2.This, in our view, is no justification whatsoever.

In fact, paragraph 11 contains a blank as far as the computation of delay is concerned, which has not even been filled in.

3.Faced with this position, Mrs.Dakshayini Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel on record for R1 to R3 would seek some time to enable the Transport Corporation to file a better affidavit.

Adjourned to 10.10.2025.”

In pursuance of the above order, the appellants have come up with an additional affidavit, dated 4^th October 2025.

4.Now the point for consideration is whether at least in the additional affidavit whether the appellants have explained the sufficient cause to condone the delay.

5.Heard Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Nos.1 to 3 and M/s.Dhakshayini Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s.Madhuri Donti Reddy, for the fourth appellant. No notice issued to the respondent.

6.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth appellant would vehemently contend that the very review application becomes essential, as the appellants inadvertently failed to bring to the knowledge of the writ Court about the factum of the date retirement of the respondent qua prior to 01.01.2008. It was also contended that the respondent herein has suppressed the material factum of filing of an earlier writ petition. While explaining the delay, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would submit that the factum of retirement of the respondent prior to 01.01.2008 was not placed before the learned single Judge, therefore the appellant Corporation was advised to withd