IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2007 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1928 CRP.No. 748 of 2006 -------------------------------- OPELE.92/2000 of 1st ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------- SRI.ABRAHAM, S/O.ISSAC, ILLIKKAL, KALLAPADAM P.O., PAZHAYANNUR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL STANDING COUNSEL SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, KSEB. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.M.Appl.NO.754 OF 2006 & C.R.P.No.748 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of March 2007 ORDER C.M.Appl.NO.754 OF 2006 This is an application seeking for condonation of delay of 602 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition. In the affidavit filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer of the K.S.E.B., who is the petitioner herein, it is stated that the award was passed on 2.11.2004 and that the C.R.P. was filed on 20.9.2006. The reason for the delay in filing the revision is stated in para 3 of the affidavit and that is as follows: “ I submit that after receipt of a certified copy of the impugned order, sanction had to be obtained from the Board for filing Civil Revision Petition and in this process there occurred a delay of 602 days in filing the Revision Petition. The delay occurred due to the bonafide reason submitted above and due to administrative exigencies.” The vague averment that after receipt of certified copy of the impugned order sanction had to be obtained from the Board for filing Civil Revision Petition and in this process there C.M.A.NO.754 OF 2006 & C.R.P.No.748 OF 2006 2 occurred a delay of 602 days is no proper explanation to have the delay condoned. In the result, I dismiss this C.M. Application. C.R.P.No.748 of 2006 C.M. Application 754 of 2006 seeking for condonation of delay of 602 days in filing this revision is dismissed. Consequently, this revision, filed much beyond time, is not maintainable and is dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE jes