P.Sundar v. The Special Tahsildar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CMP.No. 6066 of 2023 in 1.P.Sundar 2.S.Gomathi
3. E.Murugaiyan
4. E.Sankar
5. E.Selvam
6. E. Murthy ..Petitioners Vs 1.The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare Sriperumbudur Taluk at Ambattur, Tiruvallur District.
2.The Commissioner & Secretary Adi Dravidar Welfare & Social Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.
3. The Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
1/6
4. B.Vincent, The President, Chembarabakkam Village Panchayat, Pappanchatram, Palanjur -602103 Poonamalle Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
..Respondents Prayer: CMP is filed to condone the delay of 2904 days in preferring the above Review Application against the order dated 29.02.2012 made in W.A.No. 2098 of 2011.
For Petitioners : M/s.Louisal Ramesh For Respondent : Mr. E.Vijay Anand, AGP - R1 to R3
ORDER
(Judgment of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.) This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 2904 days in preferring above Review Application against the order of this Court made in W.A.No. 2098 of 2011, dated 29.02.2012.
2. It is stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner that pursuant to the order of this Court, the Revenue people agreed to consider the suggestions of allotment of land in favour of the petitioners while implementing the 2/6
Government Policy. It is further stated that on 29.07.2021 the respondent officials laid boundary stones, without prior intimation to them, hence preferred the review application before this Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners there is no delay in filing the review application.
3. We have carefully examined the averments made in the affidavit. We are not satisfied with the above explanation stated in the affidavit filed by the first petitioner for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Though the award was passed by the Tribunal on 17.11.2015, the appellant had filed the present appeal after an inordinate delay of 2169 days.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.Dohil Constructions Company Private Limited vs Nahar Exports Limited and Another reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 680, has categorically held as follows: "23. When we apply those principles to the case on hand, it has to be stated that the failure of the Respondents in not showing due diligence in filing of the appeals and the enormous time taken in the refiling can only be construed, in the absence of any valid explanation, as gross negligence and lacks in bonafides as displayed on the part of the Respondents. Further, when the Respondents have not come forward 3/6
with proper details as regards the date when the papers were returned for refiling, the non-furnishing of satisfactory reasons for not refiling of papers in time and the failure to pay the Court fee at the time of the filing of appeal papers on 06.09.2007, the reasons which prevented the Respondents from not paying the Court fee along with the appeal papers and the failure to furnish the details as to who was their counsel who was previously entrusted with the filing of the appeals cumulatively considered, disclose that there was total lack of bonafides in its approach. It also requires to be stated that in the case on hand, not refiling the appeal papers within the time CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 22 of 25 (@ SLP (C) Nos.
10811-10812 of 2014 & Connected matters prescribed and by allowing the delay to the extent of nearly 1727 days, definitely calls for a stringent scrutiny and cannot be accepted as having been explained without proper reasons. As has been laid down by this Court, Courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the same principle cannot be given a go-by under the guise of liberal approach even if it pertains to refiling. The filing of an application for condoning the delay of 1727 days in the matter of refiling without disclosing reasons, much less satisfactory reasons only results in the Respondents not deserving any indulgence by the Court in the matter of condonation of delay.
years was involved in getting its appeals registered"
5. In light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, We are not satisfied with the reason stated in the affidavit for condoning the inordinate delay of 2904 days in preferring the Review Application before this Court. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed to condone the delay in filing review application is dismissed. Consequently, the Review Application is rejected at the SR stage itself. (D.K.K., J.) (P.D.B., J.) 22.06.2023 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes ak 5/6
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
AND P. DHANABAL, J.
ak To 1.The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare Sriperumbudur Taluk at Ambattur, Tiruvallur District.
2.The Commissioner & Secretary Adi Dravidar Welfare & Social Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.
3. The Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
CMP.No. 6066 of 2023 in 22.06.2023 6/6