IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 23747 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ R.PADMINI, W/O.VEERANANDAN, T.C.60/3900, SUMANGALI, SARAS-97, SREEVARAHAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TRIDA), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JAYAMANSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, SASTHAMANGALAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ESTATE OFFICER (SECRETARY), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SASTHAMANGALAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR0, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA FOR R3 & R4 GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.23747 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order passed by the 4th respondent, whereby proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent along with a petition to condone delay of 350 days. The 2nd respondent-appellate authority, by Ext.P10 order, dismissed the appeal as well as the petition to condone delay on the ground that since there is no express provision in the Act to condone delay, delay cannot be condoned. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P10 order. According to the petitioner, in view of various decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, wherein it has been held that the provision to condone delay in the Limitation Act is applicable to quasi judicial authorities, the 2nd respondent does have power to condone delay applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act. w.p.c.23747/08 2 2. I have gone through those decisions and am satisfied that the 2nd respondent does have power to condone delay in view of the following decisions:- Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha v. Sitamarchi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (AIR 1967 SC 1494), Sarathy v. State Bank of India [2000 (2) KLT 771), Sathis Babu v. State of Kerala [2000 (3) KLT 551] and Pushpakaran v. Union of India [2008 (1) KLT 161). 3. In the above circumstances, Ext.P10 is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the application to condone delay afresh in accordance with law, on merits, after hearing the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.23747/08 3