Madras High Court
R. Bharathi vs Mr.K.Rajendiran on 9 October, 2017
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 09.10.2017
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDER
&
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.P.No.4932 of 2017 in
W.A.SR.No.8940 of 2017
R. Bharathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Mr.K.Rajendiran
Editor cum Publisher
Kalugu Reporter
Tamil Fortnightly Magazine
No.2/2/2, 1st Floor,
Bajanai Koil 2nd Street,
Choolaimedu,
Chennai 600094.
2.Messrs.Kalugu Reporter (Tamil fortnightly),
Represented by its Owner cum Publisher
Mr.K. Rajendiran,
No.2/2/2, 1st Floor,
Bajanai Koil 2nd Street,
Choolaimedu,
Chennai 600094. ...Respondents
PRAYER: This Petition is filed to condone the delay of 257 days for filing this Memorandum of grounds for Appeal preferred against the order dated 18.04.2016 made in W.P.No.2741 of 2015 and WMPs.7069 to 7070 of 2016 of this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Bharathi
Party-in-person
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by RAJIV SHAKDER, J)
1. The reasons for seeking condonation of delay are broadly as follows:
1.a. First, that the petitioner was abroad from the third week of March 2016. It is stated that the petitioner returned to India only in second week of September 2016.
1.b. Second, the application for issuance of certified copies was filed only in October 2016. And that, the copies of Writ Petitions, affidavit, Miscellaneous Petitions were misplaced.
1.c. Third, the petitioner was unwell between November and December 2016.
2. The petitioner had filed two writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.2741 of 2015 and W.P.No.2742 of 2015 against the respondents herein. The grievance articulated by the petitioner in these writ petitions essentially veers around the allegation that the respondents published news reports in their magazine which were derogatory. The assertion made was that the news reports were published with mala fide intention without any concern for truth.
2.1. The petitioner claims that he has had teaching experience of 37 years and that all throughout while he served in the Department of Chemistry, as an Associate Professor, in Tagore Engineering College,Lawspet, Puducherry, he maintained a blemishless record.
3. On the other hand, before the learned single Judge, the respondents took the defence that the articles published were based on the statements given by the staff and students of the aforementioned college. The respondents took the defence that the news reports concerning the petitioner was based on sources which were considered to be authentic. Furthermore, the defence taken was that the allegations made in these writ petitions would require trial and therefore could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings.
4. Pertinently, via the writ petitions the petitioner has claimed compensation against the respective respondents arrayed therein as parties. The relief sought, is that, the court should direct the respondents to pay a compensation of not less than Rupees fifty lakhs each.
5. To be noted the learned single Judge, without commenting on the merits of the case, has declined to entertain the writ petitions on the sole ground that the allegation made by the petitioner gives rise to disputed questions of fact and hence the writ petitions cannot be entertained. The specific observation made by the learned single Judge, is that the parties would be required to lead evidence which would have to be tested via cross examination.
6. The unnumbered appeal, before us, is, presently, at the stage of condonation of delay. Therefore, we do not wish comment on the merits of the decision taken by the single Judge. It is clear that the petitioner is guilty of latches. In a case like this, 257 days of delay cannot be condoned until good and sufficient cause shown is by the petitioner to explain the delay. The petitioner has filed the captioned applications for condonation of delay which broadly advert to grounds setforth hereinabove. There is no material filed by the petitioner which would help us arrive at a conclusion that the delay is genuine and bona fide. Copies of the passport along with visa have not been appended. There is nothing to establish that the petitioner was unwell between November and December 2016. Vague grounds have been articulated that the papers were misplaced and that he tried to obtain certified copies, which was denied. While the party seeking condonation of delay is not required to explain each days delay, from the explanation the Court, should be able to come to the conclusion that the delay caused was due to genuine and bona fide reasons.
7. Therefore, for the reasons given above, we are not inclined to entertain the petitions for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed. Consequently, accompanying W.A.SR.No.8940 and 18638 of 2017 need not be numbered by the registry. The unnumbered Writ Appeals will also stand dismissed on the account of decision rendered by us in C.M.P.No.4932 and 4933 of 2017.
(R.S.A., J.) (N.S.K., J.)
09.10.2017
Index : yes/no
ggs
RAJIV SHAKDER, J.
and
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ggs
C.M.P.Nos.4932 and 4933 of 2017 in
W.A.SR.Nos.8940 and 18638 of 2017
09.10.2017