IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 150 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MFA.35/2004 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------------- K.AYYAPPAN, S/O.KORANKUTTY, KOTTAPPALLY AMSOM, KUNNAMBATTA DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. 3. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MEPADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- C.M. Appln. No.487 of 2011 in R.P. No.150 of 2011 in M.F.A.No.35 of 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT A.K. Basheer, J. The appeal was dismissed by this Court consequent to the dismissal of the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, on May 17, 2010. 2. It was noticed that the petitioner/appellant had not taken steps to pay the process in the delay petition though notice was ordered way back in April 2004. The delay petition was posted before the Registry on several occasions and the petitioner was given more than sufficient opportunity to cure the defect. But still the process was not paid. 3. The delay petition was ultimately posted before the bench. On that occasion also the petitioner prayed for further time to pay the process. It was in the said circumstance the delay petition was dismissed. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. 4. Now the petitioner has filed this review petition with an C.M.Appln. No.487 of 2011 &R.P. No.150 of 2011 in M.F.A.No.35 of 2004 2 application to condone the delay of 235 days in filing the same. It is seen averred in the affidavit filed by the petitioner that he had been suffering from “various ailments such as high blood pressure and associated diseases”. He further states that he could not take steps to file the review petition in time because of his ailments. 5. Nevertheless, we have perused the grounds urged in the review petition also. It is seen contended by the petitioner that the respondents being State and its officials in the Forest Department, they were duly represented by the Special Government Pleader. 6. However, Sri. M.P. Prakash, learned Special Government Pleader for Forest, submits that he was not given any notice on the delay petition. The case of the petitioner appears to be that if in fact the officials were being represented by Special Government Pleader, the Registry need not have put the case in the defect list. We are unable to agree with the above contention raised in the memorandum of review petition. In any view of the matter, we are not at all satisfied with the so called explanation offered by the petitioner to condone C.M.Appln. No.487 of 2011 &R.P. No.150 of 2011 in M.F.A.No.35 of 2004 3 the delay. Therefore the delay petition is dismissed. Consequently, the Revision Petition is also dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. rkc