IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 131 of 2011(C) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.28423/2010 Dated 26/12/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- SRI. EAPEN OOMMEN, AGED 52 YEARS, VADAKKEMURI MARIRA, PARIYARAM P.O., MALLAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KALLOOPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALLOOPPARA P.O., MALLAPPALLY. 2. SRI. ROBIN MATHEW, KEECHERI MATTACKAL HOUSE, PARIYARAM P.O., MALLAPPALLY. 3. KALLOOPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALLOOPPARA P.O., MALLAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA FOR R1 & R3 BY ADV. GEORGE CHERIYAN THIRUVALLA, FOR R2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.No.131 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No.28423 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The petitioner herein had filed W.P.(C) No.28423 of 2010 seeking a direction to the first respondent to pass final orders pursuant to Ext.P4 provisional order issued by him under the provisions of section 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. In the said writ petition filed on 13.9.2010, notice was ordered to the respondents on 23.9.2010. On that date, while admitting the writ petition, I passed the following order:- “Admit. Issue notice to the respondents by speed post returnable in 10 days. Post immediately after service of notice. If till today, the first respondent has not passed final orders pursuant to Ext.P4 provisional order dated 25.5.2010 and if the first respondent has not been restrained by any competent court or authority from proceeding further in the matter, the said authority shall take a final decision in the matter, after notice to and affording the second respondent an opportunity of being heard expeditiously and in any event, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Pursuant to the said direction, the first respondent heard the parties and passed Ext.P6 order dated 29.10.2010 holding that there is no merit in the allegation of the petitioner that the building being put up by the second respondent is an unauthorised construction. Ext.P6 order was produced along with I.A.No.17582 of 2010 which was filed R.P.No.131 of 2011 2 on 17.12.2010. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 23.12.2010, on noticing that first respondent has passed final orders in the matter, I disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:- “This writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to pass orders pursuant to Ext.P4 provisional order issued under section 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Ext.P6 order produced by the petitioner along with I.A.No.17582 of 2010 discloses that pursuant to the interim order passed by the Court on 23.9.2010, the Secretary of Kallooppara Grama Panchayat heard the petitioner and the second respondent and came to the conclusion that the building put up by the second respondent is not an unlawful or unauthorised construction. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that no further orders are called for in this writ petition except to observe that if the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order passed by the Secretary of the Kallooppara Grama Panchayat, it will be open to him to challenge the same in appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The contentions of both sides in that regard are kept open.” 3. By that order, I permitted the petitioner to challenge Ext.P6 order in appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions on 13.1.2011 R.P.No.131 of 2011 3 along with I.A.No.98 of 2010, an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal however dismissed I.A.No.98 of 2010 on the ground that the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned, as the delay is more than 30 days. Consequently the appeal was also dismissed. It is stated that the petitioner has filed a petition seeking a review of the said order before the Tribunal and it is pending. This review petition was thereupon filed on 21.2.2011 seeking a review of the judgment delivered on 23.12.2010 in W.P (C) No.28423 of 2010 to the effect that the period during which the petitioner was prosecuting the writ petition in this Court is liable to be excluded applying section 14 of the Limitation Act, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. It is contended that though Ext.P6 order was communicated to the petitioner on 2.11.2010, as he was prosecuting the writ petition in this Court till 23.12.2010, the period from the date of Ext.P6 order, viz., 29.10.2010, till the date of disposal of the writ petition (23.12.2010) is liable to be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act, while computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal from Ext.P6. 4. I heard Sri.John K.George, the learned counsel R.P.No.131 of 2011 4 appearing for the review petitioner, Sri.Girish Varma, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri.George Cherian Thiruvalla, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. It is evident from the pleadings and the materials on record that during the period from 13.9.2010 to 23.12.2010, the petitioner was procesuting the writ petition in this Court. It was while the said writ petition was pending that Ext.P6 order was passed on 29.10.2010 and it was served on the petitioner on 2.11.2010. In view of Ext.P6 order, the writ petition was disposed of by judgment delivered on 23.12.2010 with the observation that if the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, his remedy is to file an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The petitioner accordingly preferred an appeal along with I.A.No.98 of 2010 on 13.1.2011. The pleadings and the materials on record show that the petitioner had filed I.A.No.17582 of 2011 on 17.12.2010 seeking leave to challenge Ext.P6 order and a direction to the first respondent to pass revised orders on Ext.P4. Therein, the petitioner had challenged the legality and validity of Ext.P6 order on various grounds including the contention that the report of the Assistant Engineer which was relied R.P.No.131 of 2011 5 on while passing Ext.P6 order was obtained behind his back and a copy thereof was not furnished to him. Having regard to the facts and circumstances set out above, I am of the opinion that the period during which the petitioner was prosecuting the writ petition before this Court, viz., the period from 13.9.2010 till 23.12.2010 should be excluded applying section 14 of the Limitation Act, while computing the period of limitation prescribed in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 for preferring an appeal from Ext.P6. In any case, the period from the date on which Ext.P6 order was passed, viz., 29.10.2010 to the date of disposal of the writ petition (23.12.2010) is liable to be thus excluded. The review petition is accordingly disposed of with the above clarification. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.