M.Sorial Muthu v. The Secretary to Government

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Shamim Ahmed, J.)

¶1This CMP.No.24295 of 2025 is filed, under Order IV Rule 9(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Madras, Appellate Side, 1965, to condone the delay of 842 days in representing the WA.SR.No.60832 of 2023.

¶2This WA.SR.No.60832 of 2023 is filed, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1862, against the order of the Writ Court, dated 30.08.2022, passed in WP.No.9421 of 2015

¶3The facts of the case, in a nutshell, necessary for disposal of the same, are as follows:-

(a) The Petitioner herein was appointed as a Grade II Police Constable on 28.02.2009. For his unauthorised absence from duty, disciplinary proceedings were initiated. An order of removal from service dated

14.09.2010 was issued and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 23.06.2014 and the mercy petition filed by him was also rejected by the proceedings dated 24.08.2014. Hence, the Petitioner had filed WP.No.9421 of 2015, which was dismissed by the order of the Writ Court, dated 30.08.2022. As against the said order, dated 30.08.2022, the Petitioner had preferred a Writ Appeal in WA.SR.No.60832 of 2023, on 27.04.2023, which was returned on

02.05.2023, granting 10 days time for certain compliance. Thereafter, the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 842 days, in representing the above WA.SR.No.60832 of 2023.

¶4This Court heard Mr.T.Dharani, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.E.Vedabagath Singh, the learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents.

¶5The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the delay of 842 days in representing the above Writ Appeal had occurred due to misplace of documents and tracing out the same and also due to preparation of translated copies of certain documents and that the said delay is neither deliberate nor willful, but due to unforeseen circumstances and hence, the learned Counsel prays this Court to allow this Petition, by condoning the delay in representing the Writ Appeal, in the interest of justice.

¶6On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents submits that this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order IV Rule 9(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Madras, Appellate Side, 1965, is, prima facie, not legally maintainable and that the reasons assigned by the Petitioner for condoning such an inordinate delay are vague and not valid reasons and hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶7This Court has given its careful and anxious consideration to the contentions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the entire materials available on record.

¶8The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition is one filed under Order IV Rule 9(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Madras, Appellate Side, 1965, with a prayer for condoning the delay of 842 days in representing the above Writ Appeal.

¶9The standard period of limitation for filing a Writ Appeal is 30 days from the date of the impugned order, as stipulated in the High Court Rules. In the present case, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 842 days in representing the Writ Appeal. However, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and under Order IV Rule 9(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Madras, the Court is empowered to condone the delay if the Petitioner is able to demonstrate "sufficient cause" for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed limitation period. The explanation offered must be reasonable, bona fide, and not indicative of negligence or inaction.

10.In the present case, the reasons assigned by the Petitioner for condoning the delay are that the delay of 842 days had occurred due to misplace of documents and tracing out the same and also due to preparation of translated copies of certain documents and that the said delay is neither deliberate nor willful, but due to unforeseen circumstances

11.After perusal of the records, this Court finds that there is neither a satisfactory explanation nor any valid reasons for condoning the inordinate delay of 842 days in representing the Writ Appeal. Hence, the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition is a time-barred one and cannot be sustained on the ground of laches.

12.The expression "sufficient cause" and satisfactory explanation has been held to receive a liberal construction, so as to advance substantial justice and generally, a delay in preferring a petition may be condoned in the interest of justice, where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide is imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, reported in 1987(2) SCC 107, the Honourable Supreme Court said that when substantial justice and technical considerations are taken against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay. The Court further said that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds, but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

13.In similar issue, facts and circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court, in WA.SR.Nos.105450 and 106444 of 2024 and CMP.Nos.17783 and 17784 of 2024, by the judgement, dated,

21.01.2026, relying on various judgements and orders of the Honourable Supreme Court, was pleased to observe as under:- " 26. After taking into consideration the averments made in the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and after hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioners/appellants , this Court is not satisfied that the Petitioners/appellants have explained the delay properly in filing the present Writ Appeals.

¶27In our view, the kind of explanation rendered herein does not satisfy the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court that if delay has occurred for reasons, which does not smack of mala fide, the Court should be reluctant to refuse condonation. On the contrary, We find that here is a case, which shows complete careless and reckless long delay on the part of the Petitioners/appellants, which has remain virtually unexplained at all. Therefore, We do not find any reason to exercise our judicial discretion exercising judiciously so as to justify the condonation of delay in the present case.

¶28In view of the above, the present Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶29In the result, in the light of the said observations and discussions made above and in the light of the decisions referred to above, these Civil Miscellaneous Petitions filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay of 972 days in filing the Writ Appeals is baseless and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶30In view of the dismissal of Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, the Writ Appeals are dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. There shall be no order as to cost."

14.Following the above said judgement, dated, 21.01.2026, made in WA.SR.Nos.105450 and 106444 of 2024 and CMP.Nos.17783 and 17784 of 2024, by the Division Bench of this Court, in similar issue, facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, seeking to condone the delay of 842 days in representing the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Consequently, the above Writ Appeal in WA.SR.No.60832 of 2023 is rejected. There is no order as to costs. (R.S.K.J.) & (S.S.A.J.)

10.02.2026 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Srcm To

¶1The Secretary to Government, Home Police (II) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600009

¶2The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai 600004

¶3The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Police, Chennai 600010

¶4The Commandant, TN Special Police XI Battalion, Pochampalli R.SURESHoKUMAR,oJ. and SHAMIMoAHMED,oJ. Srcm CMP.No.24295oofo2025 inoWA.SR.No.60832oofo2023

10.02.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.02.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED CMP.No.24295 of 2025 and WA.SR.No.60832 of 2023 M.Sonai Muthu, S/o.V.Muthukrishnan Formerly Grade II, Police Constable TN Special Police VII Battalion, Pochampalli Petitioner-CMP/ Appellant-WA.SR Vs 1. The Secretary to Government, Home Police (II) Department Fort St.George, Chennai 600009 2. The Director General of Police, Mylapore Chennai 600004 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Police, Chennai 600010 4. The Commandant, TN Special Police XI Battalion Pochampalli Respondents-CMP/ Respondents-WA.SR Prayer:- This CMP.No.24295 of 2025 is filed, under Order IV Rule 9(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Madras, Appellate Side, 1965, to condone the delay of 842 days in representing the WA.SR.No.60832 of 2023. Prayer:- This WA.SR.No.60832 of 2023 is filed, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1862, against the order of the Writ Court, dated 30.08.2022, passed in WP.No.9421 of 2015 For Petitioner(s) : Mr.T.Dharani For Respondent(s) : Mr.E.Vedabagath Singh , SGP