IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 RP.No. 100 of 2010 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN MFA.369/1998 Dated 17/07/2001 OA.25/1985 of FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS ------------------------------------------- 1. P.C.GEORGE, PARAVARAKATHU HOUSE, AMPARANIRAPPEL.P.O, BHARANANGANAM, KOTTAYAM. 2. P.C.JOSEPH, -DO- -DO- 3. P.C.DAVIS, -DO- -DO- 4. THANKAMMA JOSEPH, MANARKATTU HOUSE, PALAI, KOTTAYAM. 5. MARIAKUTTY CHACKO, PARAVARAKATHU HOUSE, AMPARANIRAPPEL.P.O, BHARANAMGANAM, KOTTAYAM. (DIED). (REVIEW PETITIONERS 1,2 & 4 REP.BY P/A HOLDER P.C.DAVIS(3RD REVIEW PETITIONER)MARIAKUTTY CHACKO (DIED)LEGAL HEIRS ARE R1 TO 4 IN RP BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R.P.NO.100/2010 2. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS AND CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, OLAVAKODE CIRCLE, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. 3. P.C.JACOB, PARAVARAKATHU HOUSE, AMPARANIRAPPEL.P.O, BHARANANGANAM, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SPL.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.P.PRAKASH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.M.Appln.No.249 of 2010 & R.P.No.100/2010 in M.F.A.No.369/1998 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010 ORDER Basheer, J. This Miscellaneous application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 2954 days in filing the review petition. 2. The petitioner is the third appellant in M.F.A.No.369/1997 which was disposed of way back on July 17,2001. The said judgment in MFA is sought to be reviewed in the review petition. 3. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay that after receipt of Annexure 1 order dated February 14, 2006 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Mannarkkad , petitioner had contacted his counsel to decide further course of action. After perusal of the judgment in the M.F.A. and the order passed by the Taluk Land Board, it was decided to file a review petition. 4. However, according to the petitioner, he was not keeping well and had been undergoing treatment. He has pressed into service a medical certificate dated December 4, 2009 which states that petitioner “is a case of RP.No.100/2010 2 chronic pancreatitis with pancreatic diabetes with diabetic neuropathy, nephropathy and retinopathy”. It is further stated that the petitioner needs regular medications and periodic investigations. 5. The Medical Certificate will not give any clue as to whether the petitioner was in fact laid up or that he had been hospitalised at the relevant point of time. There is not even a whisper with regard to the period during which he had been hospitalised. Even assuming the Review Petition can be entertained for any reason- we find none-petitioner has to necessarily give a valid explanation for the delay. Annexure I order was passed in 2006. Medical Certificate is dated December 4, 2009. We have carefully perused the affidavit. We are not at all satisfied with the so called explanation offered by the petitioner to condone the inordinate delay of 2954 days in filing the Review Petition. Therefore, the delay petition is dismissed. Consequently, the Review Petition is also dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. RP.No.100/2010 2