IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2007 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1929 CRP.No. 9 of 2007 ---------------------------- OPELE.63/1999 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. (WORLD BANK), KOTTAPPURAM,TRICHUR-4. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (LA), K.S.E.B., POWER HOUSE, POWER HOUSE ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: SRI.ABRAHAM T.P., S/O.POULOSE, AGED 52 YEARS, THAZHATHOOTTU HOUSE, NELLIMATTO P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW K.VARGHESE SRI.K.BENNY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. ---------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.14 of 2007 & C.R.P.No. 9 of 2007 ---------------------------- ORDER C.M.Appl.14/2007 This is an application for condonation of delay of 527 days in filing the civil revision petition. The certified copy of the impugned award produced shows that the award was passed on 11.3.2005; that copy application was made after one year and five months on 25.8.2006 and that copy was received on 7.10.2006. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay of more than one year and five months in applying for copy of the impugned award. The explanation for the delay, as stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, filed in supported of the C.M. Application, is that after receipt of certified copy of the award, sanction had to be obtained from the Board for filing the CRP and in this process there occurred a delay of 527 days in filing the revision and that the delay has occasioned due to CRP 9/07 2 administrative exigencies. This sort of explanation in an irresponsible manner, without giving any of the details as to how the delay occurred and as to why there was a delay of more than one year and five months to apply for a copy of the impugned award, does not enable the petitioner to get the delay condoned. In the result, I dismiss this C.M. Application, refusing to condone the delay of 527 days. C.R.P.No.9/07 C.M.Appl.No.14/07 seeking for condonation of delay of 527 days in filing the revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, this CRP, filed far out of time, is not maintainable and is dismissed. 22nd March, 2007 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv