IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1756 of 2009(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.N.PUBLIC HEALTH AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING TRUSTEE-SECRETARY, DR.O.KANNAPPAN, NO.25,JAWAHAR MAIN ROAD, NRT NAGAR THENI-625531,TAMILNADU. BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN SMT.S.ARCHANA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STAE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVT.OF KERALA GOVT.SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, THE DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE PUDUSSERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, PUDUSSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KANJIKODE P.O. PALAKKAD-678621. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.1756 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Trust which aspires to start a self financing medical college at Palakkad. They started construction of a building after obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Panchayat. Pursuant thereto, orders were issued under Section 235 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act to stop the construction. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent closed down the premises and put a seal on the lock of the building preventing entry into the building. The petitioner filed W.P.(C). No.37571/2008, in which the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 276(4) of the Panchayat Raj Act before the Tribunal along with a petition to condone delay. Since the delay was beyond the condonable limit prescribed in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Rules, the Tribunal dismissed the petition to condone delay and consequently the appeal also. Exts.P9 and P10 are those orders. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P9 and P10 orders in this writ petition. 2. This Court has already taken a view that once the delay is beyond the condonale limit as per the rules, the Tribunal cannot entertain the appeal, in the decision of this Court in Thomas Thomas v. Kottayam Municipality [2008 (3) KLT 964]. The Division Bench w.p.c.1756/09 2 decision referred to therein also lays down that Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to resurrect a time barred claim. That being so, I am not inclined to entertain the challenge against Exts.P9 and P10 orders. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge