IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 RSA.No.370 of 2008 (B) --------------------------- AS.14/2004 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD OS.102/1996 of ADDL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARAGOD (D2). 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER, MANJESWAR AT UPPALA. 4. THE HEAD MASTER, G.L.P.SCHOOL, KUNJATHUR, P.O.MANJESWAR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.L.G.SURESH BABU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. KARTHIYAYANI, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O.LATE BABU SURAJ, HINDU, HOUSE HOLD, UDYAVAR, MANJESWAR P.O., KASARAGOD. 2. SANJEEVA BHANDARY, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.OBAYYA BHANDARI, BARBER, NEAR G.U.P SCHOOL, KURJATHUR, MANJESWAR P.O., KASARAGOD. RSA.No.370 of 2008 (B) -2- 3. PARENT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, G.I.P.SCHOOL, KUNJATHUR REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SMT.V.DEEPA THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C. M. Application No.304 of 2008 in R. S. A. No.370 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This is an application for condonation of delay of 315 days in preferring the R.S.A. 2. In the affidavit filed by the Assistant Educational Officer, Manjeswar in support of the application for condonation of delay, it is submitted that the decree and judgment assailed was passed on 14/02/07; that due to an inadvertent omission which occurred accidentally the application for certified copy could be made only on 10/09/07; that though certified copies were made available on 17/09/07, the legal opinion of the additional Government Pleader was obtained only on 30/10/07 and the same was forwarded to the Deputy Director of Education; and thereafter the legal opinion of the Additional Government R. S. A. No.370 of 2008 -2- Pleader and the certified copy of the judgment were sent to the Advocate General on 30/11/07 by the Deputy Director of Education and the file was given to the Government Pleader on 13/12/07 and thereafter, the appeal has been filed on 31/03/08 and that there is no wilful negligence or laches on the part of the applicant for filing the appeal in time. 3. The deponent is the Assistant Educational Officer of Manjeswar. He has absolutely no direct knowledge about the matters sworn to by him. He is not the competent officer to say as to why copy of judgment which was delivered on 14/02/07 was applied for only on 10/09/07 after about seven months. In a case wherein so much delay has already occasioned, it is not known how the Additional Government Pleader took time from 17/09/07, the date on which copy was received till 30/10/07 to give a legal opinion R. S. A. No.370 of 2008 -3- especially when he was the one who was conducting the case in the court below. No explanation is forthcoming from the said Additional Government Pleader. However, though legal opinion was received on 30/10/07, the said legal opinion along with certified copy of the judgment was sent to the office of the Advocate General only on 30/11/07 namely after one month. However, that was being sent by the Deputy Director of Education and not by the deponent. The explanation for delay on that count has to be given by the Deputy Director of Education and not by the deponent. Further, it is seen that though the file was submitted along with the legal opinion to the Advocate General on 30/11/07, the file was passed on to the Government Pleader only on 13/12/07 and thereafter, the appeal has been filed taking their sweet time only as late as on 31/03/08 namely more than three and a half months. This R. S. A. No.370 of 2008 -4- shows the irresponsible way in which the case was being conducted and I do not see any just and sufficient cause to condone the delay whatever be the merits of the case. 4. In the result, refusing to condone the delay of as much as 315 days in preferring the R.S.A, I dismiss this C.M. Application. Consequently, the R.S.A also stands dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-