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 WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 W.A.No.89 of 2008 -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.NO.13785/2000 DATED 02/02/2006 .................... APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS:- ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, COMMISSIONERATE OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS IN THE O.P.:- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAMESH BABU, PROPRIETOR, BABU & COMPANY, I.O.C. DEALER, KEROSENE WHOLESALE DEALER, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. G.KRISHNAN, INDIAN OIL DEALER, KEROSENE WHOLESALE DEALER, AMARAVILA, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV.SRI.T.S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.M.Joseph,J. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.89 of 2008 & C.M.Appln.No.51 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.13785 of 2000 dated 2.2.2006. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the Original Petition filed by the respondents herein. (2) In filing the appeal, there is a delay of nearly 592 days. To condone the said delay, the appellants have filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Along with that application an affidavit is also filed. (3) We have carefully perused the explanation offered by the appellants in the affidavit for condonation of delay. The explanation offered, in our view, is wholly unsatisfactory. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned by us. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is rejected. (4) Consequent to the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the appeal also stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice K.M.Joseph Judge vku/-