IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 16052 of 2008(J) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. PRABHAKARAN K., 37/UA/1357A, KUMARANASAN ROAD, KALOOR P.O., KOCHI - 17. 2. VICTORIA V., W/O.PRABHAKARAN, 37/UA/1357A, KUMARANASAN ROAD, KALOOR P.O., KOCHI. BY ADV. MR.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR MR.V.B.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REP. BY SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI R2 BY ADV. MR.S.RAMESH BABU, SC.COCHIN CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 16052/2008-J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.KRP2/93/04 DATED 13/08/2004 WITH PLAN. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER DATED 04/09/2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE CONFORMATION ORDER DATED 08/10/2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE FINAL NOTICE DATED 18/11/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.22/06 DATED 03/03/2006. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REGULARISATION APPLICATION DATD 22/05/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/10/2007 IN W.P.(C). NO. 31018/07. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE DATED 22/01/2008 IN CCC NO.121/2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE IA NO.475/08 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN RE-PRESENTING THE APPEAL. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/05/2008 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN IA NO.475/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ V.GIRI, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.16052 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exhibit P12 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, declining to condone the delay of 63 days in re-presenting the appeal. According to the petitioner, the appeal was preferred against Exhibit P8 order, which was sent by speed post on 23.2.2008, after petitioner had received a copy of Exhibit P9 order. The appeal was received in the office of the first respondent on 25.2.2008. The defective appeal memorandum was received back on 8.5.2008, but the endorsement made therein was to the effect that it was returned on 25.2.2008. The memorandum of appeal, after curing the defect, was re-presented on 15.5.2008 along with Exhibit P11 I.A and the same was dismissed as per Exhibit P12 order wherein the Tribunal proceeded to hold that it does not have jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond a period of 30 days. Exhibit P12 has been challenged in this Writ Petition. WP(C).NO.16052/08 2 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Cochin Corporation. 3. Exhibit P12 order shows that the Tribunal has proceeded to decline to condone the delay in re-presenting the appeal on the basis of the proviso to Rule 8 of the Tribunal Rules. Rule 8 of the said Rules deals with condonation of delay in presenting an appeal before the Tribunal. In the present case there is no dispute that the appeal was presented in time, though it was defective. Though Rule 11 of the Tribunal Rules speaks about curing the defect in a defective petition within 15 days of its return, there is no time limit as such mentioned in the Rules, beyond which the Tribunal would cease to have jurisdiction to receive the re-presented appeal on file. Condonation of delay in re-presentation is a matter which fall within the inherent jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Unless there is a specific statutory provision, barring condonation of delay in re-presentation beyond a time limit, it would be advisable that such jurisdiction be found in favour of the Tribunal. Interests WP(C).NO.16052/08 3 of justice demands that the inherent power of the Tribunal be invoked in such cases. Accordingly, Exhibit P12 order is quashed and the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions is directed to receive Exhibit P10 appeal back on file, hear and dispose of the same on merits, after notice to the respondents as well. The appeal shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, JUDGE vgs.