GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. S UDAYASHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The official respondents in W.P.No.9531 of 1998, which came to be allowed by this Court on 26.04.2007, are the appellants. The respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the above said writ petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash G.O.Ms.No.134, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 23.04.1998. The learned Judge, on consideration of rival submissions and on going through the materials, found that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed the writ petition and thereby quashed the said Government Order. Aggrieved by the same, the official respondents therein had filed this writ appeal in W.A.No.SR32762 of 2017, with a delay of 3615 days in filing the writ appeal.

(2.) Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners/appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking condonation of delay and would submit that the delay had occurred on account of conflicting opinion given by different law officers of the State regarding feasibility of filing appeal and for getting legal opinion, it took considerable time and further on account of coming into force of the new Act, namely the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Central Act 30 of 2013], the delay had occurred and it cannot be considered as neither willful nor wanton. It is the further submission of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners/appellants that Tvl.Uttamchand Galada, Vasanth Bala Galada and Manish Galada had filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.10236 of 1998, 7110 of 1999 and 9437 of 2006, challenging the very same Government Order and all the writ petitions were dismissed by this Court and hence prays for condonation of delay and disposal of the writ appeal on merits.

(3.) Per contra, Mrs.Vedavalli Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/writ petitioners would submit that the delay is huge and enormous and the only reason cited is on account of conflicting legal opinion given by different law officers of the State as to the feasibility in filing the appeal and further on account of coming into force of the new Act, namely the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and it cannot be hardly said as satisfactory reason for condonation of such huge delay and prays for dismissal of this petition with costs.