IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN C.M.P.No.19873 of 2025 and W.A.SR No.93927 of 2025

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009

2.The District Collector Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram

3.The Special Tahsildar (L.A)

Unit I SIPCOT Oragadam Expansion II Scheme, SIPCOT, Pillaipakkam Project Office Building, Kundrathur Main Road, Sriperumbudur 602 105 Petitioners/

Appellants Vs Martin Xavier S/o. Amaladoss, No. 2-L, Sri Vari Apartments, 18, Abdul Razak Street, Saidapet Chennai – 600 015.

Respondent Prayer in C.M.P.No.19873 of 2025: Application filed to condone the delay of 459 days in filing the above Writ Appeal against the order dated 20.02.2024 made in W.P.No.828 of 2024.

Prayer in W.A.SR No.93927 of 2025: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.828 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024.

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

In support of the prayer seeking condonation of delay of 459 days, all that has been stated in the affidavit is as below:

“7. After having obtained opinion as it advised to file appeal against the order dated 20.02.2024, steps have been taken to file the Writ Appeal and in the interregnum there arose a delay of 459 days in filing the above appeal. As stated above, the delay of 459 days, thus caused, in filing the above appeal is neither willful nor wanton but due to the bonafide administrative reasons stated supra. If the delay of

459 days in filing the appeal is not condoned, the petitioners/appellants would be put to much hardship besides being put to severe monetary loss. On the other hand no prejudice will be caused to the Respondent herein by condoning the delay of 459 days in filing the above appeal.”

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 b