IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7778 of 2009(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.N.MADHAVAN PILLAI, ATHIRA HOUSE, NEDUMKANDAM P.O. IDDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 7778 OF 2009 N ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 12th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner seeks a mandamus to condone the delay in preferring Ext.P9 appeal and pass orders on Ext.P9 appeal and to stay the recovery of the luxury tax from the petitioner for 2009- 2010 till the disposal of Ext.P9 appeal. 2. Delay can be condoned only up to six months. Admittedly, the delay of 728 days is far more than the period of six months and hence the delay cannot be condoned. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the appellate authority is bound by the bar of six months but this court can direct the appeal to be considered. If the appellate authority is bound to dismiss an application filed beyond six months, the writ court cannot direct consideration of such an application. Hence, I see no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks