Madras High Court
B.Kumarasamy vs The Principal Secretary To The ... on 16 March, 2026
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
C.M.P(MD)No.3308 of 2026 in
W.A(MD)SRNo.19652 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
C.M.P.(MD)No.3308 of 2026
in
W.A.(MD)SR.No.19652 of 2026
B.Kumarasamy ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Vs-
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul. ... Respondents/Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 01:21:21 pm )
C.M.P(MD)No.3308 of 2026 in
W.A(MD)SRNo.19652 of 2026
PRAYER in C.M.P.(MD)No.3308 of 2026: Petition filed under Section 5
of the Limitation Act, Civil Procedure Code, to condone the delay of 1641
days occurred in filing the Writ Appeal.
PRAYER in W.A.(MD)SR.No.19652 of 2026: Petition filed under Clause
15 of Letters Patent, to allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order dated
06.08.2021 made in W.P.(MD)No.2840 of 2013 on the file of this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.R.Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan (R1 to R3)
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 1641 days in filing the Writ Appeal.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 01:21:21 pm ) C.M.P(MD)No.3308 of 2026 in W.A(MD)SRNo.19652 of 2026
3.The reason assigned for the delay is that, after his retirement, the petitioner was engaged by the National Highways Authority of India for land acquisition proceedings and, due to old age and certain medical ailments, he could not contact his Advocate in time. Except the above, no other reasons have been assigned.
4.Normally, the Court adopts 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 reasons. In the present case, the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking condonation of such a huge delay is bereft of necessary details, particularly with regard to the nature of the ailments said to have been suffered by the petitioner. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation, condonation of such an inordinate delay cannot be sought as a matter of right.
5.In this regard it is useful to refer the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Ors Vs. Melvisharam 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 01:21:21 pm ) C.M.P(MD)No.3308 of 2026 in W.A(MD)SRNo.19652 of 2026 Muslim Educational Society reported in 2018 [3] CTC 420, wherein the Division Bench of this 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 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.” 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 01:21:21 pm ) C.M.P(MD)No.3308 of 2026 in W.A(MD)SRNo.19652 of 2026
6.When the law mandates that a particular activity shall be performed within a stipulated time, the same cannot be diluted. What is pitted against the common man is equally apply against the Government. They cannot sit over the files and come to the Court belatedly with some flimsy reasons. A Court granting indulgence must be satisfied that there was diligence on the part of the appellants. When there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the said delay cannot be condoned as a matter of right.
7.The Court, in exercising discretion, particularly in these types of petitions, has to see the conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence. The above factors are relevant to be taken into consideration as the fundamental principle is that Courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go-by in the name of liberal approach. There is an increasing tendency to perceive delay even in a non-serious matter. Hence, the delay due to nonchalant attitude should be curbed at the initial stage itself. It is for them to be very vigilant from the very inception 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 01:21:21 pm ) C.M.P(MD)No.3308 of 2026 in W.A(MD)SRNo.19652 of 2026 and they cannot sit over the files and come up with unacceptable reasons to condone the delay.
8.We are not satisfied with the reasons for condoning the delay. Further, the Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.2840 of 2013, dated 06.08.2021, wherein the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect imposed by the appointing authority was upheld. We do not find any merit in the present appeal.
9.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected W.A.(MD) SR No.19652 of 2026 is rejected at the SR stage itself. No costs.
[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.]
16.03.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
ps
6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 01:21:21 pm )
C.M.P(MD)No.3308 of 2026 in
W.A(MD)SRNo.19652 of 2026
To
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 01:21:21 pm ) C.M.P(MD)No.3308 of 2026 in W.A(MD)SRNo.19652 of 2026 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ps C.M.P(MD)No.3308 of 2026 in W.A(MD)SR.No.19652 of 2026 DATED : 16.03.2026 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 01:21:21 pm )