IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 RSA.No. 488 of 2008 --------------------------------- AS.420/2004 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.486/2001 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDUTHY BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHALAKUDY. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KODAKARA. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS: 1. KURUMBA, AGED 78, W/O KOLLIKKARA KARUPPAN, MOOLANKUDAM DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. SANKARAN, AGED 54 PUNARAKAVEETTIL, VASUPURAM DESOM, DO. DO. 3. SHEELA, AGED 44, W/O PUNARKA SANKARAN, DO. DO. 4. SAJEEVAN AGED 36, S/O PALAKKAL KARTHIYANI, DO. DO. 5. JOSEPH, AGED 49 PROPRIETAR, RIYA ELECTRICLS, VARANTHARAPPILLY VILLAGE, MOOLANKUDAM DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.408 of 2008 & R.S.A.No.488 of 2008 --------------------------- JUDGMENT This is an application for condonation of delay of 103 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal. The judgment under appeal was pronounced on 28.6.2007. Copy thereof was applied for only on 5.7.2007. Stamp papers called for on 10.9.2007 were produced only on 13.9.2007. Though 18.9.2007 was fixed as the date to appear and receive the copy, copy was taken delivery of only on 20.9.2007 and the appeal is filed only on 24.3.2008. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the C.M. Application the Assistant Executive Engineer, attached to the Office of the Standing Counsel for Kerala State Electricity Board (K.S.E.Board), has offered explanation for the delay to the effect that the certified copy of the impugned judgment, taken delivery of on 20.9.2007, was forwarded to the Secretary, K.S.E.Board, Thiruvananthapuram; RSA 488/08 2 that the Secretary placed the matter before the Legal Advisor and Disciplinary Enquiry Officer for his legal opinion; that the said Officer opined to file second appeal before this Court; that thereafter the matter was placed before the K.S.E. Board and on 22.10.2007 the K.S.E.Board accorded sanction to file second appeal; that thereafter the impugned judgment was forwarded to him; that he handed over the certified copy of the impugned judgment to the senior Standing Counsel for K.S.E. Board to file second appeal along with the lower court records on 2.11.2007, but unfortunately, the case bundle was misplaced in the office of the Standing Counsel and it was traced out only on 5.3.2008 and the appeal was filed on 24.3.2008, with a delay of 103 days and that the delay has to be condoned, as there is no wilful laches or negligence on the part of the K.S.E.Board. 3. It is worthy to note that the deponent is an Assistant Executive Engineer, attached to the RSA 488/08 3 Office of the Standing Counsel for K.S.E.Board itself. He has no other work other than to look after the cases in the Office of the Standing Counsel. There is no meaning in his saying that he handed over the files to the Standing Counsel on 2.11.2007 and it happened to be misplaced and it was traced out only on 5.3.2008. The period in between is more than four months. Even if the entire files in the Office of the Standing Counsel were to be sorted out, so much time was not necessary and it could have been done in less than a month. This shows the culpable neglect and laches with which matters are being dealt with by the deponent at the office of the Standing Counsel. Such irresponsible conduct in the matter of conduct of cases cannot be accepted as a ground to condone the delay of as much as 103 days, especially when, rights have accrued to the successful party in the meanwhile by reason of non filing of appeal by the aggrieved party within the time prescribed by law RSA 488/08 4 of limitation. There is no just and sufficient cause to condone the delay of as much as 103 days in the circumstances stated above. In the result, refusing to condone the delay of as much as 103 days in filing the appeal, I dismiss this C.M. Application. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal also stands dismissed. 9th July, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv