IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24883 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR @ M.K.P.NAIR S/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, KOLLAM VEETTIL, KOKKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA. (OFFICIAL REFERENCE NO.850832764 L/NK (GD), OF 'F'/130 BN, C.R.P.F.PLATOON POST) BY ADV. SRI.P.J.JOSEPH SRI.C.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. THE COMMANDANT, 130 BN, CRPF, C/O 56 APO 3. DEPUTY GENERAL OF POLICE, CRPF, HYDERABAD -5 4. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CRPF, HYDERAVAD-5 SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 24883 OF 2010 (I) ===================== Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought in the writ petition is for a consideration of Ext.P2 revision filed by the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, he was a Lance Naik (L/NK) in the CRPF. According to him, by order dated 19/12/2000, he was removed from service. The appeal filed was rejected by Ext.P1 order dated 22/3/2001. It is stated that, aggrieved by the above, he has filed Ext.P2 revision before the 4th respondent. It is seeking a direction for the disposal of Ext.P2 revision, the writ petition is filed. 3. Revision is filed under Rule 28 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules” for short). The Rule provides that against an appellate order, a person aggrieved may file a revision before the next superior authority. Rule 29(b) provides that the procedure prescribed for appeals under Sub Rules (c) to (g) of Rule 28 shall apply to petitions for revision. 4. Going by the provisions contained in Rule 28, Appeal WPC No. 24883/10 :2 : shall be filed within 30 days and the proviso to Rule 28(e) states that the appellate authority may entertain time barred appeals, if deemed fit. Therefore, it is obvious that there is no limitation on the period upto which the revisional authority or appellate authority can condone the delay in filing the appeal and the Rule enables the appellate and revisional authorities to entertain time barred appeals in appropriate cases inspite of the delay. 5. Having regard to the above, it is for the revisional authority to consider Ext.P2 and the application made by the petitioner for condonation of delay, if satisfied about the bonafides on the explanation offered for the delay and to consider the revision itself. In that view of the matter, I direct the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P2 and the application made by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the revision, provided, the revision and the petition for condonation of delay have been received and are pending. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider the revision and the request for condonation of delay, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate WPC No. 24883/10 :3 : within three months of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp