IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10528 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.V.ANTONY, THEKKANATH HOUSE, 23/72, UCC P.O., 683 102. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ALUVA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ALUVA. 2. R.M.BUILDERS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SOMI REJI, W/O.REJI MATHEW, ARAKUKKAL HOME, JANATHA ROAD, VYTTILA. 3. SOMY REJI, W/O.REJI MATHEW,ARAKUKKAL HOME, JANATHA ROAD, VYTTILA. ADV.V.M.KURIAN, FOR R1. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.10528 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, against a permit issued in favour of respondents 2 and 3, along with a petition to condone delay. That petition for condonation of delay was dismissed by the Tribunal and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. The petitioner is challenging that order. 2. The petitioner's contention is that although a learned Single Judge of this Court in Thomas Thomas v. Kottayam Municipality & Ors. [2008 (3) KLT 964] has held that after the period for which the Tribunal has power to condone delay, the Tribunal has no power to entertain an appeal as in the case of a time barred suit that decision was without taking into account the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Pushpakaran v. Union of India [2008 (1) KLT 161]. I am unable to appreciate that contention. As is clear from Pushpakaran's case (supra), Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable only if there is no express provision in the special or local law contrary to the provisions in Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act. In the present case, the local law specifically stipulates that the Tribunal has power to condone delay of only upto 30 days. That being 2 so, Pushpakaran's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. Moreover, as pointed out by the counsel for the Municipality, in Thomas Thomas' case (supra) itself, Pushpakaran's case was distinguished on the same reasoning. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that even then, the Tribunal had a duty to consider the contention of the petitioner regarding the reasons for delay. I do not find any merit in that contention also, since, admittedly the petition to condone delay itself was for condoning delay of 272 days. It is also admitted by the petitioner in the affidavit accompanying the application to condone delay that the petitioner came to know about the issuance of the permit on 7.3.2008. He filed the appeal only in December, 2008. That being so, the appeal is beyond the condonable limit of the Tribunal and whatever be the reasons for the delay, the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay, In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the challenge against the impugned orders. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3