IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 33403 of 2007(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. V.V.SHAJI, ADVOCATE, VAZHATHARA MALAYIL HOUSE, NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL, THIRUVALLA. 2. RAJUS.J., W/O.V.V.SHAJI, DO, DO. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY, THIRUVALLA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SRI. S. SUBASH CHAND- SC FOR R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 33403/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT DT. 9/4/07 IN WPC NO. 6669/07. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS NUMBERED AS APPEAL NO. 190/2007. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE APPLICATIOIN FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN IA NO. 952/2007 DT. 18/10/2007. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED TO EXTHIBIT P2 APPEAL NO. 190/07. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 DT. 5/11/2007 IN IA NO. 952/2007 IN APPEAL NO. 190/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.33403 OF 2007-B ----------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE TH JANUARY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Very extensive arguments were addressed by Sri.Muralikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.Subhash Chand, learned counsel for the Municipality on the question as to whether the provisions of Sections 14(1)& (2) of the Limitaiton Act can be made applicable to the proceedings before the Local Self Government Institutions. My attention was drawn by Sri. Muralikrishnan to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rameshwarlal v. Municipal Council, Tonk & Others, [1996(6)SCC 100], P. Sarathy v. State Bank of India, [AIR 2000 SC 2023], Rule 8 of the Tribunal Rules and also to definition clause 2(b) of the Indian Limitation Act. Sri. Subhash Chand, standing counsel cited decisions in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Parson Tools & Plants, [1975 (35)S.T.C.413], S.E.& I. v. Commissioner of C.C.E, [2005 (4)K.L.T.828] and District Executive Offiver v. Abel, [2006(2)K.L.T.758] and submitted that Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be made applicable to the Tribunals. I do find merit in the submissions made by Sri. Subhash Chand. However, I feel that on the facts and circumstances in the case, there is justification for directing the Tribunal to entertain Ext.P2 WP(C)No.33403/2007 -2- appeal. In the circumstances, I set aside Ext.P5 and direct the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions to entertain Ext.P2 appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law after hearing all concerned parties. The Tribunal will dispose of the appeal within four months of receiving a copy of this judgment. Till the appeal is disposed of, the building in question will not be demolished by the Municipality. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ks. TRUE COPY WP(C)No.33403/2007 -3-