IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.01.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN CMP No.24534 of 2025 in WA SR No.100402 of 2025

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep By The Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.

2. Directorate of Medical Education Rep By The Director Of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai- 600 010.

3. Directorate of Public Health & Preventive Medicine Rep By The Director Of Public Health And Preventive Medicine, 359, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 006

4. Tirunelveli Government Medical College Rep by its Dean, Tirunelveli. Appellants Vs Dr.R. Nivetha Respondent PRAYER CMP No. 24534 of 2025 filed to condone the delay of 207 days in filing the Writ Appeal against the order dated 17.04.2024 in WP No.28257 of 2023.

For Appellants : Mr. E.Vijay Anand Additional Government Pleader JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

In support of the prayer seeking condonation of delay of 207 days, all that has been stated in the affidavit is as below:

“20. I submit that the copy of the order in WP No.28257 of 2023 dated 17.04.2024 was received only on 31.01.2025 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 207 days in filing the writ appeal. The said delay is neither wilful nor wanton but purely administrative. Unless this Hon’ble Court condones the delay of 207 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 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