IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9689 of 2009(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE MANAGER, ST. MARY'S BETHANY SCHOOL, KARIMPA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KARIMPA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARIMPA P.O., PALAKKAD. 3. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 9689 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 26th March, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the manager of an aided CBSC School. The petitioner submitted an application for building permit to construct an additional floor to the school building and also for numbering the ground floor of the building. The same was rejected by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner filed W.P(C) No. 5890/2009 before this Court. In that writ petition by Ext. P2 judgment, I relegated the petitioner to the alternate remedy by way of appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an appeal, but that appeal was rejected with the endorsement that the date of filing of the proceedings before the High Court is not stated in column 5 for the purpose of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner's grievance now is that in spite of the petitioner making appropriate endorsement in the appeal, the appeal is not being considered on the ground that unless the petitioner obtains an order from this Court, the Tribunal cannot consider the same. The petitioner therefore seeks the following relief: “To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on merits on Ext. P4 Appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext. P3 order of the Panchayat Secretary.” 2. I have perused Ext. P1 appeal, which has been subsequently corrected by the petitioner. In that, the petitioner has not stated the date of filing of the writ petition. The petitioner has only stated as follows: “Hon'ble High Court in its Judgment dtd. 2-3-2009 in W.PC 50 . . . has directed to file an appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order.” W.P.C. No. 9689/09 -: 2 :- I am of opinion that I have not directed the petitioner to file an appeal, but I only directed that the petitioner's remedy lies in filing an appeal against the impugned order. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner shall re-present the appeal specifically stating in that appeal the date of filing of the writ petition and the date of disposal of the writ petition. The Tribunal shall consider the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.