The court emphasizes the necessity of providing adequate justification for significant delays in legal proceedings, particularly when filed by government departments.

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking to condone a delay of 890 days in filing the Writ Appeal.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5, and perused the materials available on record.

3.It is the contention of the petitioners that the delay of 890 days in filing the present Writ Appeal is attributed to administrative and procedural reasons. Though the order was passed on 13.12.2022, a copy of the same was received only on 28.03.2023. Thereafter, an opinion was sought from the higher officials regarding the feasibility of filing an appeal, and upon obtaining their approval, a further opinion was obtained from the learned Government Pleader.

4.Subsequently, time was consumed in collecting the relevant and necessary documents, including records relating to the notices issued to the writ petitioner, which were essential to substantiate the case of the appellants. Thus, the delay occurred in the process of obtaining approvals and compiling the required materials.

5.It is submitted that the delay was neither wilful nor wanton, but occurred due to bona fide administrative reasons. Hence, the petitioners pray that the delay be condoned in the interest of justice.

6.Ordinarily, the Court adopts a liberal approach while considering petitions for condonation of delay. At the same time, for extending such a liberal approach, there must be justifiable reasons. In the present case, the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking condonation of such a huge delay is bereft of sufficient and satisfactory particulars explaining the inordinate delay. In the absence of any acceptable explanation, condonation of such delay cannot be sought as a matter of right.

7.In this regard, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Others vs. Melvisharam Muslim Educational Society reported in 2018 (3) CTC 420, wherein it has been held as follows:

“...Though the delay is condoned by the Court normally in a liberal manner, the said approach cannot be extended mechanically without any plausible explanation. What is pitted against an ordinary litigant is also pitted against the Government before a Court of law to establish a particular fact. Though the words ‘sufficient cause’ have to be given a liberal interpretation, to exercise discretion for such liberal approach, there must be necessary facts in the affidavit filed in support of the same. But, on a perusal of the affidavit, we do not find any plausible explanation for such delay except stating that there is an administrative delay. Such vague and bald explanation cannot be accepted mechanically. When Courts are extending such liberal approach mechanically, it has become a routine affairs of the Government Departments to file the appeals against every order passed by the Court. The present day scenario in filing the appeal, challenging every order by the Government Departments, clearly exhibits shirking responsibility of the Department Heads. In fact, now the tendency has developed among the Department Heads, not to take any risk and to avoid any question relate to the litigant and only in order to avoid any query, the administrative side files these types of appeals, though there is no merit in the appeal.”

8.When the law mandates that a particular act shall be performed within a stipulated time, the same cannot be diluted. What applies to a common litigant equally applies to the Government. The authorities cannot sit over files and approach this Court belatedly with flimsy reasons. While granting