IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No.27 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.32758/1999 Dated 08/12/2005 .................... APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS:- -------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, ALWAYE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.MEERA. RESPONDENT: PETITIONER:- ----------------------------------------- K.P.VARGHESE, MANAGING PARTNER, K.V.PAULO & SONS, T.O.C. DEALER, KEROSENE WHOLESALE DEALER NO.2/69, ANGAMALI, ALWAYE TALUK. BY ADV.SRI.T.S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.M.Joseph,J. ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.27 of 2008 & C.M.Appln.No.9 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.32758 of 1999 dated 8th December, 2005. (2) In filing the appeal, there is a delay of 696 days and, therfore, an application is filed by the appellants/applicants to condone the said delay. (3) We have carefully perused the explanation offered by the appellants/applicants for condonation of the delay. In the said affidavit except stating that the papers were moving from table to table and person to person, no other explanation is offered by the appellants/applicants for the delay in filing the appeal. (4) In our opinion, the explanation offered by the appellants/applicants for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal is wholly unsatisfactory and, therefore, the said explanation cannot be accepted by us. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned by us. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay requires to be rejected and it is rejected. (5) Consequently the appeal is also rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice K.M.Joseph Judge vku/-