IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6838 of 2010(D) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.M.MOIDUNNI,S/O.MUHAMMED,ARAKKAL HOUSE, ESTATE,PERUMANNUR.P.O, CHALISSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU, MR.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHALISSERY, CHALISSERY.P.O,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY OF THE PANCHAYATH. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).6838/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT By order dated 26.9.2009, an application made by the petitioner for licence of a live stock market was rejected by the Panchayat. That order was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.(C).34069/2009. The writ petition was filed on 24.11.2009. By Ext.P2 judgment dated 7.1.2010, the writ petition was dismissed in view of the alternate statutory remedy available to the petitioner. Accordingly, on 4.2.2010 the petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The appeal was returned with an endorsement on Ext.P3 that the appeal was barred by limitation. It was thereupon the writ petition was filed. 2. As per the Rules the appeal has to be filed within 30 days. Tribunal has power to condone the delay of another 30 days. It has been held by this Court that if the delay is beyond the condonable limit, the Tribunal has no power to condone the W.P.(C).6838/10 2 delay in the matter. Therefore if the appeal filed by the petitioner is beyond 60 days of the order of the appeal, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for returning the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay has occurred due to the pendency of the writ petition. If, as a matter of fact excluding the period during which W.P.(C). 34069/2009 was pending before this Court if the appeal was filed within 60 days, this Court would have been justified in directing the Tribunal to consider the appeal on merits. It is seen that even if that exercise is undertaken the appeal is still filed beyond the permissible period. In such circumstances this Court will not be justified in directing the Tribunal to entertain the appeal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs