IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 WA.No. 1261 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18053/2005 Dated 20/06/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA. BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.R.SABU. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- MOLLYAMMA ANTONY, W/O.P.J.ANTHONY, PATTARA PUTHENPARAMBIL, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATIFF. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.A.No.1261 of 2010 & C.M.Appln.No.621 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T J.Chelameswar, CJ. C.M.Appln.No.621 of 2010 is filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 682 days in filing the appeal against the judgment, dated 20.6.2008, in W.P.(C) No.18053 of 2005. The substance of the explanation given in the affidavit filed in support of the petition is that State lost two years in consulting various persons as to whether appeal should be preferred in the matter or not. At paragraph 5 of the affidavit, it is stated as follows:- “5. It is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the time taken for consultation with District Collector, Alappuzha, Taxes Department, Law Department and Additional Advocate General regarding scope for appeal. It has not come to the notice of Government that the appeal time was over by this time. It is also submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was not due to any wilful negligence or laches on the part of the petitioner.” W.A.No.1261 of 2010 & C.M.Appln.No.621 of 2010 2 2. The most interesting part of the narration is that the Under Secretary to the Government of Kerala, Mr.R.P.Raheem, who is the deponent of this affidavit made it bold to put on record that “it has not come to the notice of Government that the appeal time was over by this time”. 3. The period of limitation to file a writ appeal is 30 days from the relevant date. 4. The certified copy of the judgment which is sought to be appealed against was admittedly received by the Government on 8.8.2008. On the face of such fact, we simply fail to understand as to how the deponent believes or states that the Government has not noticed of the fact that the period of limitation for preferring the appeal is over. The above extracted sentence to our view only demonstrates the absolute carelessness in filing the affidavit apart from utter lack of respect for the Rule of Law on the part of the deponent of the affidavit. He also believes that the delay is not due to any willful negligence or laches. If the various offices of the State consume a period of two years on the question whether an appeal should W.A.No.1261 of 2010 & C.M.Appln.No.621 of 2010 3 be preferred in the given case or not, where the period of limitation is 30 days, it is hard to accept that there is neither negligence nor laches on the part of various functionaries involved. Lastly, we “admire” the temerity of the deponent in stating that “it is only just and proper that this Honourable Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 682 days in filing the above appeal”. Such a statement, in one view, is also capable of being construed as a statement dictating the course of action to this Court. In the circumstances, C.M.Appln.No.621 of 2010 is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/- to the Kerala State Legal Services Committee. Consequently, the writ appeal is also dismissed. J.CHELAMESWAR, Chief Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. nj.