“Either Negligence Or Connivance”: Madras High Court Calls For Vigilance Probe Into State's Delay In Filing Appeals

The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that in a large number of cases, the court was observing that the State was filing appeals after a great delay and no satisfactory explanation was being given for the delay. The court noted that the delay seemed to be either due to negligence or due to connivance with the parties concerned. The court thus directed that a discreet vigilance enquiry can be conducted to unearth the truth.

“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 court said.

The court made the direction while dismissing a petition filed by the Greater Chennai Corporation, for condoning a delay of 1421 days in filing an appeal against an order of a single judge. The single judge had directed the authorities to find out whether a public road had been laid in the compound of Kannammal Educational Trust, and if found so, to pay appropriate compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation Act. The single judge's order was passed on October 7, 2021.

The bench noted that in the delay condonation application, seeking to condone a delay of 1421 days, the authorities had submitted that there was no wilful or wanton delay. It was submitted that the certified copy of the single judge's order could not be found in the Corporation Office and that the revenue authorities had also submitted the documents only in September and November 2025, which caused the delay.

The court noted that no sufficient cause had been made out for the delay, and the officials who were dealing with the files were completely indolent and sat over the files without doing anything.

The court noted that in umpteen cases, the Supreme Court had held that the periodof limitation should be explained by the State and that it did not stand on any exalted position. Thus, considering the decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts, the court was not inclined to condone the delay and rejected the applications.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr.E.C.Ramesh

Case Title: The Commissioner and Others v. Kannammal Education Trust and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 99

Case No: CMP No.4315 of 2026 and WA SR No.196371 of 2025