IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7554 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ USHA, W/O.LATE K.V.SUBRAMANIAN, IV/466A, KOLAZHIKARAN HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM, VALAPPAD P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, TRICHUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, COMMISSIONERATE OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THRISSUR. 4. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD. 5. SHIBY THOMAS, KONIKKARA HOUSE, VADANAPPALLY, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. R1 TO 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 7554 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 4, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition, petitioner contends that her husband was running AWD - 2/CKD Valappad. It is stated that the 5th respondent had filed an appeal against the appointment of the petitioner's husband who is now no more. Following the directions contained in Ext.P5 order judgment, the Appellate Authority has now issued Ext.P7 notice and it is challenging Ext.P7 this writ petition has been filed. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the proceedings that is the subject matter of Ext.P7 itself is not maintainable in as much as the appeal now posted was filed belatedly. On that ground the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings leading to Ext.P7 notice are illegal and therefore deserves to be quashed. 3. In my view, if the appeal filed by the 5th respondent is belated as contended by the counsel for the petitioner, that is a ground which the petitioner should urge before the Appellate WP(C) 7554/08 Page numbers Authority when she is to appear in response to Ext.P7. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner expressed an apprehension that since the appeal is scheduled for hearing pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment, the Appellate Authority may not be inclined to take into account objections such as delay, that is now raised. I do not find any basis for this apprehension. If any legal contention is raised, the Appellate Authority will consider those contentions and in this case if delay is urged by the petitioner, I have no reason to think that such a contention will not be considered. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to urge all the legal contentions that are available, before the Appellate Authority, this writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-