IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.01.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN C.M.P.No.22211 of 2025 and W.A.SR No.141460 of 2025

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 006.

3.The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services Anna Salai, Chennai-600 006.

4.Directorate of Medical Education Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010 5.Institute of Child Health Madras Medical College, E.V.R. Periyar Salai, Chennai-600 003.

6.Government Hospital, Arakkonam Ranipet District - 631 001.

Appellants Vs Dr.M.Malavika D/o.K.Murgesan, Flat No.4, Taurus Apartments, Door No.11, 11th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 083.

Respondent PRAYER in C.M.P.No.22211 of 2025 : Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 360 days in filing the appeal.

PRAYER in WA SR No.141460 of 2025 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 24.5.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13868 of 2024.

For Appellants: Mr.E.Vijay Anand Addl. Government Pleader ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

In support of the prayer seeking condonation of delay of 360 days, all that has been stated in the affidavit is as below:

“14. I submit that, the copy of the order in WP No.13868 of 2024 dated 24.5.2024 was received only on 28.6.2024 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 360 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 360 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. 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 co