IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 5 of 2009() ------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24046/2003 Dated 03/04/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICLTURE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KASARGOD. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.MEERA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ S.SUSHAMA, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, MOGRAL PUTHUR, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.5 of 2009 and C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2009 in W.A.No.5 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated 8th January, 2009 JUDGMENT Koshy, Ag.C.J . C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2009 is a petition to condone the delay of 865 days in filing the appeal. Learned single Judge by the impugned judgment only stated that as per the settled law, the date of effective advice is the date to be reckoned for the purpose of seniority, following the decision of this court in State of Kerala v. Thomas Oommen (2003 (1) KLT 7). Therefore, Government was only advised to do the needful in the light of the declared legal position. We cannot understand why a writ appeal is filed from that decision. In any event, absolutely no grounds are stated for condoning the long delay. It is stated that copy of the judgment was received on 4.7.2006. Only administrative delay and delay in getting legal opinion inclusive of misplacement of the file for some period etc. are taken as the grounds for the delay. Even the date of affidavit was changed at the time of filing the petition for condoning the delay. We see no ground to condone the long delay in filing the appeal. Hence, W.A.5/09 & C.M.Appl.1/09 2 the delay condonation petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. J.B.KOSHY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE tks