2021 (8) TMI 401 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing petition - whether the petition can be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches? - HELD THAT - The dates and events clearly shows that there is no delay in approaching the learned Writ Court. However, the larger question would be whether the appellant can seek for the relief granted to Mr.P.Manickam by filing a representation in the year 2009 and whether he could have filed a writ petition to consider his representation and whether the order dated 06.03.2014 could have been challenged in a writ petition without approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal. These issues have to be considered in the writ petition and since the writ petition was dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches, the writ petition should be heard afresh and a decision should be arrived at on merits. The writ petition is restored to the file of the learned Single Bench of this Court, with liberty to the respondents to file additional counter-affidavit, if they so desired. Since the writ petition is of the year 2014, the Registry is directed to list the writ petition before the concerned Court, during second week of August 2021 - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Dismissal of writ petition on the ground of delay and laches without considering merits.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras, comprising of Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Mrs. Justice S. Ananthi, heard a writ appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition on the basis of delay and laches. The appellant sought relief similar to that granted to Mr. P. Manickam, who had previously succeeded in his case. The court examined whether the writ petition could have been dismissed solely based on delay and laches without considering the merits of the case. The court found that there was no delay in approaching the court and raised questions regarding the appellant's entitlement to seek similar benefits as Mr. Manickam. The court concluded that the writ petition should be heard afresh to decide on the merits of the case, as it was unjustly dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches.

The background of the case involved Mr. P. Manickam filing a case before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was later allowed in his favor. Subsequently, the appellant submitted a representation seeking similar benefits, which was not considered, leading to the filing of the writ petition. The court noted the sequence of events and emphasized that the dismissal of the writ petition based solely on delay and laches was unwarranted. The court directed the writ petition to be restored to the file of the learned Single Bench for a fresh hearing on the merits, allowing the respondents to file additional counter-affidavit if required.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the previous order that dismissed the writ petition and restoring it for a fresh hearing on the merits. The court emphasized that the dismissal based on delay and laches was unjust and directed the writ petition to be listed for hearing in August 2021, with no costs imposed.