IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 10374 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MRS. KAMALA RAPHEL, W/O.C.J.RAPHEL RESIDING AT EARIS, 13/519 A, CHERIAPARAMBIL HOUSE CHUNGAM, FEROKE P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. FEROKE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SECRETARY FEROKE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10374 of 2008(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER OF THE PANCHAYATH. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6.2.2004 SERVED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.1.2007. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECRETARY. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN R.P. 1271/2007 DATED 9.1.2008. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM BEFORE THE TRUBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.2.2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R1(a) - TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.7.2007 OF THE SECRETARY, FEROKE GRAMA PANCHAYAT. S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.10374 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 14th day of October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exts.P5 and P8 orders. Ext.P5 is an order of the 2nd respondent by which the Panchayath directed the petitioner to cure certain defects in the construction being made by the petitioner pursuant to a permit issued by the Panchayath. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, which dismissed the appeal by Ext.P8 order on the ground that the appeal is time barred. In view of two Division Bench decisions and a Single Bench decision of this Court following those Division Bench decisions holding that, jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked for the purpose of ressurecting a time barred appeal, the writ petition is not maintainable. (See Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise v. Krishna Poduval 2005(4) KLT 947, Krishnan T & another v. W.P(C)No.10374 of 2008 - 2 - State of Kerala ILR 2007 (1) Kerala 233 and Thomas Thomas v. Kottayam Municipality 2008(4) KHC26). Of course the petitioner would submit that for the present the petitioner is aggrieved only by direction No. 1 in Ext.P5. Even for considering that question on merits, I have to hold that writ petition is maintainable since the appeal challenging Ext.P5 was the one which was dismissed by the Tribunal as time barred, which I cannot, in view of the above said decisions. That being so, I am satisfied that the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs