The Collector v. P.Thiyagarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.06.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN C.M.P. No.8388 of 2017 in W.A. No.SR 36712 of 2015 and W.A. No.SR 36712 of 2015 The Collector, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.
..Petitioner/Appellant /Versus/ Thiyagarajan, Record Clerk, Government Higher Secondary School, Vandavasi.
..Respondent/Respondent Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 145 days in filing the Writ Appeal against the order dated:05.11.2014 made in W.P.6850 of 2007. Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 05.11.2014 made in W.P.No.6850 of 2007. For Petitioner/Appellant : Mrs.A.Srijayanthi, Special Government Pleader.
COMMON ORDER (Order of the court was made by RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.) This Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner to condone the delay of 145 days in filing this Writ Appeal against the order dated 5.11.2014 made in W.P.6850 of 2007.
2.
There is a delay in 145 days in filing against the order dated 5.11.2014 made in W.P.No.6850 of 2007 wherein the learned Single Judge has observed that the Writ Petitioner, who is a Government Servant, by availing the housing loan from the Government for construction of a house and since there was no proper completion of construction, the appellant has imposed penal interest on the outstanding amount, which was set aside by the learned Single Judge and the appellant was directed to work out with simple interest afresh and recover the same from the respondent herein.
3. On perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge, it is seen that the respondent herein had sent a representation to the appellant informing that subsequently he had completed the construction and sought for one more inspection which was not heeded by the appellant and it is not the case of the appellant that the respondent herein has not at all completed the construction. Therefore, we do not find reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Single Judge.
4. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking to condone the delay in filing the writ appeal, except administrative reasons, no other reason is set out. Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the
delay. In this view of the matter this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeal at SR Stage is rejected. No costs. (H.G.R.,J.)(T.K.R.,J.) 07.06.2017.
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No rkp/ssk.
HULUVADI G. RAMESH, J.
AND RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J rkp/ssk.
CMP. No.8388 of 2017 in W.A. No.SR 36712 of 2015 and W.A. No.SR 36712 of 2015 07.06.2017.
http://www.judis.nic.in