IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,

CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

C.M.P.No.21658 of 2025

and W.A.SR No.94366 of 2025

The District Revenue Officer,

Erode, Erode District.

Appellant

Vs

K.C.Sivasubramani,

S/o.Chennimalai Gounder,

216, Vellode Main Road,

Kanagapuram Post, Vellode via,

Erode-638 112.

Respondent

PRAYER in C.M.P.No.21658 of 2025 : Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 422 days in filing the

appeal.

PRAYER in WA SR No.94366 of 2025 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7788 of 2024.

For Petitioner/ Mr.E.Vijay Anand Appellant: Addl. Government Pleader JUDGMENT (Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

In support of the prayer seeking condonation of delay of 422 days, all that has been stated in the affidavit is as below:

“9. I respectfully submit that the delay in filing this Writ Appeal is neither willful nor wanton but due to the administrative exigencies and official procedures. Unless the delay is condoned, the Appellants/ Department/ Government will be put to irreparable loss and hardship and much financial strain. On the other hand no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent if the delay is not condoned and the Writ Appeal may be adjudicated on merits in the interest of justice, equity and fair play”

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. V. Bherulal, 1(2020) 10 SCC 654, it was found that the appeal filed by the State was with delay of 663 days. The cause shown for inordinate delay in that case was due to unavailability of documents and the process of arranging documents and also a reference to bureaucratic process works. In the aforesaid factual context, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, observed as below:

"3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. MANU/SC/0460/1987 : (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. MANU/SC/0132/2012 : (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:

"27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. Th