IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 WA.No. 2106 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN RP.787/2010 Dated 09/09/2010 .................... APPELLANT: REVIEW PETITIONER ------------------------------- SUMAKUMARI R.S., MANKALA VADAKKATHU VEEDU, KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 524. BY ADV. MR. N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR. P.K.MANOJKUMAR MS. HENA BAHULEYAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 5. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 6. THE SECRETARY TO LEGISLATURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 7. THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. W.A. NO. 2106 OF 2010 :2: 8. THE SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 9. THE SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 10. THE SECRETARY TO LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 11. THE SECRETARY TO HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 12. THE SECRETARY TO AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 13. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. MR. ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC R3 TO R3 SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.A. No. 2106 of 2010 and C.M.Appl. No. 1060 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 25th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT J. Chelameswar, C.J. C.M. Application No. 1060 of 2011 is filed praying that the delay of 12 days' in filing the Writ Appeal be condoned. 2. The Writ Appeal itself is filed against the order dated 09.09.2010 in Review Petition No. 787 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 11954 of 2006. The applicant was the petitioner in the above mentioned writ petition as well as the review petition. The said writ petition was closed on 14.06.2007, holding that, the matter had become infructuous. Almost three years after the closure of the Writ Petition, the appellant filed the above mentioned Review Petition No. 787 of 2007 praying that, the order dated 14.06.2007 suffers from some error apparent on the face of record. 3. By the order under appeal, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the review petition, on the ground that, there was inordinate delay in filing the review petition and not even an application seeking W.A. No. 2106 of 2010 : 2 : condonation of delay was filed by the applicant seeking review. Therefore, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for delay and latches in filing the review petition, the learned Judge by order under appeal dismissed the review petition. 4. The instant appeal is filed once again with a delay of 12 days. C.M. Application No. 1060 of 2010 is also filed seeking to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Respondents 1 and 2 are served by Sri. Alexander Thomas, standing counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission and others are served by the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Benny Gervasis. 5. The learned senior counsel Sri. N. Nandakumara Menon appearing for the appellant submits that, the learned Judge erred in coming to a conclusion to dismiss the review petition on the ground of delay and latches. According to the learned counsel, the review application is filed invoking the jurisdiction inherent in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review its own orders. Such a review petition is not regulated by the procedures contemplated under Civil Procedure Code nor the provisions of the Law of Limitation are applicable to such review petition. 6. For the purpose of the present case, we do not wish to examine the question whether the Limitation Act applies to the W.A. No. 2106 of 2010 : 3 : proceedings seeking review of an order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We presume for the purpose of this case that the Limitation Act is not applicable, even then the jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary. The conduct of the party seeking the relief from the Court is one of the relevant factors guiding the Court in exercising the discretionary jurisdiction. Approach to this Court three years after the writ petition was dismissed without any explanation whatsoever for such delay in our view does not entitle the petitioner to seek any relief from the Court. In the circumstances, the instant application seeking to condone the delay of 12 days in filing the Writ Appeal is condoned. But, we do not see any reason to interfere the order under appeal dated 09.09.2010. The Writ Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd