IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11145 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMT.JUBAIRA, W/O.MANSOOR, AMBALATHARA, PULLUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 3. SUB COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD. MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.11145 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P4 & P5. These orders are dated 02/07/2007 & 16/10/2007 respectively. Going by these dates, evidently, the challenge now raised is highly belated and on that ground itself, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P4 was communicated to the petitioner only in the last week and therefore there is no delay in filing the writ petition. However, I am not prepared to act upon the submission for the reason that subsequent to Ext.P4, on a representation filed by the petitioner, Ext.P5 was issued and this order makes reference to Ext.P4. The petitioner has no case that Ext.P5 was not served in time. On the other hand, it is admitted that this order was served in time. If that be so, the alleged delay in the service of Ext.P4 does not justify the delay in filing the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg