Isabella Mariam

The Madras High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan has directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, to conduct a discreet vigilance inquiry into cases where state authorities have persistently filed appeals with inordinate delays and without adequate explanation. The court observed that such delays — as seen in this case involving a 1421-day gap — appear to stem from either gross negligence or possible connivance with opposing parties, and accordingly dismissed the condonation application while directing the order's copy be forwarded to the Chief Secretary.

The matter before the High Court of Madras concerned an application filed by municipal authorities seeking condonation of a delay of 1421 days in filing a writ appeal against an earlier order passed in a writ petition concerning a land dispute involving a private educational trust. The appellants included officials of the municipal corporation and the district administration, while the respondents included the educational trust and state authorities connected with municipal administration and revenue matters.

Also Read: IBC | Supreme Court Cautions Against Unsuccessful Resolution Applicants Using Procedural Irregularity As Pretext To Challenge CoC's Commercial Decisions

In support of the application for condonation of delay, the appellants submitted that the certified copy of the earlier order passed in the writ petition could not be located within the corporation office, even though it had been obtained in the year 2021. It was also stated that documents relating to the relevant survey number had been sought from the revenue authorities and were furnished on later dates. According to the appellants, the writ appeal arose only after the documents supplied by the revenue authorities were found to contain contradictions.

The respondents opposed the request for condonation of delay. The Court considered the explanation placed in the affidavit and examined the issue of whether the appellants had demonstrated sufficient cause to justify the delay in approaching the appellate jurisdiction. The Bench also examined precedents of the Supreme Court concerning the obligation of government authorities to explain delays in litigation and the application of limitation principles to state instrumentalities.

The court observed that the explanation offered by the Corporation of Chennai in seeking condonation of a delay of 1421 days did not constitute sufficient cause, noting that "the officials concerned dealing with the files were completely indolent and sat over the matter without doing anything."

The court further recorded that the Supreme Court, in numerous judgments, had consistently held that the period of limitation must be explained by the State, and that the State "does not stand on any exalted position."

Drawing from the Supreme Court's judgement in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal, the court stated that "the claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government." It further recorded that "condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."

Referring to the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, the court recorded that "administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay" and that courts "ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude."

The court additionally stated that "in case of such a gross delay and absence of any reason assigned, the controlling authority is required to hold appropriate inquiry. We are of the view that such cases where appeals are not being filed since long, should also be discreetly examined by the Vigilance Department of the Government to find out whether the non-filing of appeal where the State or its authority have high stakes involved, was result of gross negligence or a case of connivance."

The Bench directed: “As the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application do not constitute sufficient cause, the application is dismissed. Consequently, WA SR is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.”

“At this stage, we are constrained to issue a direction to the Chief Secretary of the State as we are finding that in large number of cases, the appeals are being filed after a great delay and lame excuses, as in the present case, are being made. In case of such a gross delay and absence of any reason assigned, the controlling authority is required to hold appropriate inquiry.”

Also Read: Periodic Medical Check-Ups For Prisoners A Fundamental Right Under Article 21 : Madras High Court

“We are of the view that such cases where appeals are not being filed since long, should also be discreetly examined by the Vigilance Department of the Government to find out whether the non-filing of appeal where the State or its authority have high stakes involved, was result of gross negligence or a case of connivance.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. E.C. Ramesh

Case Title: Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai & Others v. Kannammal Education Trust & Others
Case Number: CMP No. 4315 of 2026 and WA SR No. 196371 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Justice G. Arul Murugan