Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 667 (MAD)

Management of Tamil Nadu v. Presiding Officer

2016-02-22

M.VENUGOPAL, SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2016
ORDER : M.VENUGOPAL, J. The Petitioner/Appellant/Transport Corporation has preferred the instant Miscellaneous Petitions praying for passing of an order by this Court to condone the delay of 1257 days in filing the W.A.SR.Nos.77296, 77299, 77304, 77309, 77313 & 77318 of 2013 as against the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.19353, 19354, 19356, 19355, 19358 & 19357 of 2000 respectively dated 19.02.2010. 2. According to the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Transport Corporation, the files concerning the Writ Petitions were lost due to the fire accident in the Petitioner/Appellant's Office and that the proof of such accident can be seen from the registration of the case by the Police in CR.No.205/204/2013/C3 dated 10.03.2013 (filed by the S.S. Colony Police, Madurai) and as such, they were unable to proceed further in preferring the Writ Appeals in time. In that process, there occasioned the delay in preferring the present Writ Appeals which is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the aforesaid reasons. Also that the papers could not be recovered in time and the files were reconstructed at the instance of the Petitioner/Appellant's counsel. Added further, the other procedures had also contributed to the delay in preferring the instant Writ Appeals in time. 3. At this stage, this Court very relevantly points out that although on the side of Petitioner/Appellant reasons were assigned to the effect that files concerning the Writ Petitions were lost due to the fire accident in the Petitioner/Appellant's Office which had resulted in registration of the case by the concerned police in CR.No.205/204/2013/C3 dated 10.03.2013 etc., the reasons ascribed are not adequate enough for this Court to condone the delay of 1257 days in preferring the instant Writ Appeals in SR.Nos.77296, 77299, 77304, 77309, 77313 & 77318 of 2013. 4. In this connection, it may not be out of place for this Court to make a relevant mention that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.Dohil Constructions Company Private Limited V. Nahar Exports Limited and Another reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 680 at Special Page 681 whereby and whereunder at Paragraph Nos.19 and 24 it is observed and held as follows:- “...19.It is true that the delay in filing the appeals was only 9 days and that the longer delay was only relating to the refiling of the appeal papers. But even if it is related to refiling of the appeals, the net result is that the appeals could be taken into records only when such a delay in refiling is condoned. Therefore, if the refiling had been made within the time granted by the Registry of the High Court, no fault can be found with anyone much less with the party concerned or whomsoever was entrusted with the filing of the papers into the registry. But when an enormous delay of nearly five years occurred in the matter of refiling, it definitely calls for a closer scrutiny as to what was the cause which prevented the party concerned from refiling the papers in time to enable the Registry to process the papers and ascertain whether the papers were in order for the purpose of numbering the appeals. 24. 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 bona fides as displayed on the part of the respondents. Further, when the respondents have not come forward 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 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 bona-fides in its approach. Also, in the aforesaid decision, at page 682, in paragraph 25, it is held as follows: “25. Thus, there is total lack of bona fides in its approach and the impugned order of the High Court in having condoned the delay in filing as well as refiling, of 9 days and 1727 days respectively, in a casual manner without giving any reason, much less acceptable reasons, cannot therefore be sustained.” 5. Suffice it for this Court to pertinently point out that the reasons assigned on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant/Transport Corporation as stated supra, are not quite convincing in nature. Suffice it for this Court to pertinently point out that the reasons assigned on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant/Transport Corporation as stated supra, are not quite convincing in nature. As such, this Court is not subjectively satisfied to condone the delay of 1257 days in the subject matter in issue. Viewed in that perspective, the Miscellaneous Petitions fails. 6. In fine, the Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.A.SR.Nos.77296, 77299, 77304, 77309, 77313 & 77318 of 2013 stands rejected.