IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10504 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.PADMINI, W/O.VEERANANDAN, T.C.60/3900, SUMANGALI, SARAS-97, SREEVARAHAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SCRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(TRIDA), REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, JAYAMANSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ESTATE OFFICER (SECRETARY), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH BY SC SRI. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.10504 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P13, an order passed by the District Collector rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing Ext.P7 appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that, Ext.P5 is an order passed by the Estate Officer, the 4th respondent, for the eviction of the petitioner in terms of the provisions contained under the Kerala Public Buildings (Evicting of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1968. Against the said order petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal before the District Collector, the 2nd respondent along with Ext.P8 application for stay and Ext.P9 application to condone 350 days delay in filing the appeal. WP(c).N.10504/09 2 3. On the ground that the 2nd respondent has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the appeal was rejected by Ext.P10. That was challenged before this court in WP(c).No.23747/08. The writ petition was disposed of holding that the 2nd respondent has power to condone the delay and Ext.P11 is the judgment. Accordingly the matter was considered and by Ext.P13, the application for condonation of delay was rejected by the District Collector on the ground that he was not satisfied with the reasons stated. It is challenging Ext.P13 that the writ petition is filed. On a reading of Ext.P13, I am not satisfied that there has been a proper exercise of power by the District Collector. In my view the reasons stated for condonation of delay as contained in Ext.P9 prima facie shows that the petitioner was justified in the belated filing of the appeal and the petitioner ought to have been given the chance to contest the case on merit. Therefore I quash Ext.P13 and direct the District Collector to consider Ext.P7 appeal with notice to the WP(c).N.10504/09 3 Petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).N.10504/09 4