IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 20025 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.K.JAYALAKSHMI W/O. UMESH, AGED 43 YEARS 7/172, VAZHETH LANE, EMILIE, KALPETTA. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KALPETTA MUNICIPALITY KALPETTA. 2. THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SECRETARY TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.JOE JOSEPH KOCHIKUNNEL FOR R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the Order dated 29.6.2001. Ext.P2. True copy of the Order dated 14.10.2001. Ext.P3. True copy of the decision dated 19.11.2001 of the Ist respondent. Ext.P4. True copy of the complaint dated 23.1.2003. Ext.P5. True copy of the complaint filed by the petitioner dated 6.2.2003. Ext.P6. True copy of the application dated 5.10.2006. Ext.P7. True copy of the Memo dated 7.10.2006. Ext.P8. True copy of the explanation dated 10.10.2006. Ext.P9. True copy of the suspension order Ext.P10. True copy of the complaint dated 15.11.2006. Ext.P11. True copy of the judgment in WP(c).No.7299/03. Ext.P12. True copy of the charge memo dated 05.1.2007 issued by the Ist respondent. Ext.P13. True copy of the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 18.1.2007. Ext.P14. True copy of the application dated 5/11/2007. Ext.P15. True copy of the representation dated 5.11.2007. Ext.P16. True copy of the minutes report dated 19.12.2008. Ext.P17. True copy of the Order of the Ist respondent. Ext.P18. True copy of the appeal filed before the Tribunal for Local Self Government. Ext.P19. True copy of the judgment dated 27.8.2009. Ext.P20. True copy of the Order dated 10.6.2010 in I.A.No.748/09. // true copy // P.S to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.20025 OF 2010(C) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P17 is the proceedings of the Chairperson of the respondent Municipality, issued in pursuance to the decision No.5 dated 19.12.2008 of the Municipal Council, dismissing the petitioner from service. Petitioner challenged Ext.P17 order before this court in W.P(c).No.4075/09. Apparently taking note of the objection raised by the Municipality that an alternate remedy of appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution was maintainable against the order or dismissal, during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner filed Ext.P18 appeal before the Tribunal invoking appellate power under Section 509 of the Kerala Municipality Act. Along with the appeal, petitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay. It would appear that the appeal filed by the petitioner was defective and the Tribunal had ordered on 1.8.2009 that the appeal be returned for curing the defects. However, defect was not cured and the appeal was remaining unattended and defective in the Tribunal. WPC.No. 20025/2010 :2 : 2. It was while so that on 27th August, 2009, W.P(C). No.4075/09 came up for hearing. Petitioner did not disclose that the appeal was defective and hence incompetent. Acting upon the submissions about the pendency of the appeal and on the assumption that the appeal is a validly filed one, this court rendered Ext.P19 judgment, holding that, since the order impugned in the appeal filed by the petitioner is one dismissing her from service, the Tribunal should entertain the appeal as filed within the time and pass orders thereon within 4 months, with a further order that the petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. This court also stayed the order of dismissal of the petitioner and also directed that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the residential quarters occupied by her. 3. It would appear that long thereafter, on 23.1.2010, the appeal was taken back from the file of the Tribunal and was represented only on 10.6.2010. In the meanwhile petitioner was residing in the quarter on the strength of the stay order passed by this court. On that date, the Tribunal passed Ext.P20 order, dismissing the application for condonation of delay on the ground that under Rule 8 of the Rules, the power of the Tribunal to WPC.No. 20025/2010 :3 : condone the delay is limited to one month. It is challenging Ext.P20 order that this writ petition is filed. At the stage of admission, on the prima facie impression that Ext.P20 order was against the directions in Ext.P19 judgment, an order of stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P20 was also passed on 28.6.2010. 4. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that this court having condoned delay in Ext.P19 judgment and directed the Tribunal to entertain the appeal on merits, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal by Ext.P20 order. Although, technically the petitioner's contention would appear to be attractive, in my view in the peculiar facts of this case, petitioner does not deserve any indulgence in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. As already seen, Ext.P19 judgment in WP(c).NO. 4075/09 was rendered by this court on 27.8.2009 on the assumption that Ext.P18 appeal was a validly filed one. It is on that basis that this court directed its disposal within 4 months and also stayed the order of dismissal of the petitioner and also directed that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the residential quarters WPC.No. 20025/2010 :4 : occupied by her. Subsequent to its disposal, the Municipality had filed I.A.No.6851/2010 in WP(c).No.4075/09 , in which Ext.P19 judgment was rendered and in that I.A, this court passed annexure-1 order on 16th June, 2010. In that order, taking note of the conduct of the petitioner, that she secured Ext.P19 judgment for the disposal of the appeal, with the full knowledge that the appeal then pending was a defective one, curing the defect and re-presenting the same after inordinate delay, this court modified the directions in Ext.P19 judgment and vacated the order staying the eviction of the petitioner from the residential quarter occupied by her. In addition to the above, it was without producing Annexure-1 order rendered on 16.6.2010, that this writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 25.6.2010 and obtained an order of stay on 28.6.2010 enabling her continued occupation of the quarters. Thus suppressing Annexure-I order, petitioner obtained an interim order in this writ petition also, as a result of which further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-1 order was also stalled. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner disentitles her for any further indulgence in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. WPC.No. 20025/2010 :5 : 6. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant any relief. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/