Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause and plausible explanation; financial hardship alone insufficient without vigilance.

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone a delay of 502 days in filing the Writ Appeal against the order dated 23.08.2024 made in Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.109 of 2024.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and perused the materials available on record.

3.The reason assigned for the delay is that the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 21.05.2020 and has been without employment for the past five years. It is further stated that the petitioner has been engaged in continuous litigation during this period without any fruitful result and has been struggling to make both ends meet. The petitioner, being the father of two girl children, submits that due to dismissal from service at the end of his career without any monetary benefits, he has been put to severe hardship and financial constraint. Owing to the same, he was unable to file the present appeal within the prescribed time. It is contended that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton. It is also stated that the petitioner has a good case on merits and that the balance of convenience lies in his favour.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 21.05.2020 on allegations of misconduct, misappropriation and embezzlement of funds. Challenging the dismissal order, the petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.12499 of 2020, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 16.06.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred W.A(MD)No. 1801 of 2023. After advancing arguments for a considerable length of time, the learned counsel for the petitioner withdrew the appeal with liberty to work out his remedy by filing a review petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.109 of 2024, which was dismissed on 23.08.2024. Subsequently, the petitioner filed C.M.P(MD)No.3811 of 2025 in W.A(MD)SR.No.66195 of 2024 challenging the very same order passed in W.P.(MD) No.12499 of 2020 dated 16.06.2023. This Court, by order dated 05.06.2025 in C.M.P.(MD) No.3811 of 2025, refused to grant leave to file the Writ Appeal. Despite the rejection of leave, the petitioner has once again filed the present petition seeking condonation of delay of 502 days in filing a Writ Appeal against the order dated 23.08.2024 in Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.109 of 2024.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly submitted that, since the petitioner was dismissed from service and was facing financial constraints, he could not file the appeal within time, resulting in the delay.

6.It is well settled that Courts ordinarily adopt a liberal approach while considering petitions for condonation of delay. At the same time, in order to extend such a liberal approach, there must be justifiable and sufficient reasons.

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 the Division Bench has 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 Court of law to establish a particular fact. Though the word â sufficient causeâ has to be given a liberal approach, 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 plausible explanation for such delay except