IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 2721 of 2007 -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.27141/2007 Dated 01/10/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------------- S.SIKHAMANI, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT SABALA, KUNNUVARAM, ATTINGAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.2721 of 2007 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 27th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant/petitioner retired from service on 30.6.2004. The proceedings initiated against him for fixation of liability culminated in Ext.P7 proceedings dated 4.4.2005. Based on that, Ext.P9 liability certificate has been issued to him on 12.7.2005. The appellant did not demur against those proceedings. Even on his own showing, he received Ext.P7 in December 2005. The first representation stated to have been filed by him against the fixation of liability is Ext.P12, dated 10.8.2007. The writ petition was filed in September, 2007 challenging inter alia Exts.P7 and P9 orders and also the fixation of liability under them to the tune of Rs.35,683/-. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. 2. Having regard to the above noted facts, we feel W.A.No.2721 of 2007 - 2 - that, there is considerable delay from the part of the appellant in challenging the impugned proceedings. A person aggrieved by an order should challenge it before the appropriate forum within a reasonable time limit. Going by the well settled principles governing invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. But, the rights, if any, of the appellant to pursue Ext.P12, will not be affected by this judgment. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- C.T. Ravikumar, Judge. DK. (True copy) P.S. TO JUDGE.