IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31927 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. JAIJY MATHEW, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE MATHEW, ERAMBADATHIL HOUSE, KOOTHATTUKULAM P.O., PIN 686 662, RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.802, BLUE LAGOON APARTMENTS, CHILAVANNOOR ROAD, ELAMKULAM, KOCHI-20. 2. DR.DEEPHI, W/O.JAIJY MATHEW, -DO-, -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW SRI.JEPH JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KOOTHATTUKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOOTHATTUKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. REGIMON.P.ALEX, S/O.P.M.CHANDY, PADIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOOTHATTUKULAM (PADIKKAPARAMBIL, MANOHARAVASTHRAM, KOOTHATTUKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF, GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS FOR R2 G.P. SHRI.M.R.SABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.31927 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are challenging Ext.P8 order (corrected version of which is produced as Ext.P11) of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, whereby the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal by the 2nd respondent has been condoned. The contention of the petitioners is that delay is not three days, but more than the condonable limit as per the rules. According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent was aware of the order against which appeal has been filed as early as in May, 2008, as is evidenced by Ext.P10 and the appeal is dated 10.9.2008, ie. beyond 3 months and the Tribunal has power to condone delay only up to 30 days. They have a further case that they have not been afforded an opportunity of being heard to bring this fact before the Tribunal before Ext.P8 order has been passed. The counsel for the 2nd respondent opposes the prayers of the petitioners. According to him, Ext.P8 order has been rightly passed in so far as there is only 3 days' delay in filing the appeal. w.p.c.31927/08 2 I am not inclined to go into that question now. In so far as the petitioners are parties to the appeal, they have a right to object to the application for condonation of delay. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Tribunal considers their objections and the documents in support of those objections filed by the petitioners also. Accordingly, Ext.P8 (corrected version of which is produced as Ext.P11) is quashed and the Tribunal is directed to reconsider I.A.No.999/2008 in Appeal No.487/2008, before him, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners herein to file objections to the I.A. and hearing the petitioners also. It would be open to the 2nd respondent to disprove Ext.P10 by placing appropriate pleadings and documents on record, before the Tribunal. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.31927/08 3