IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20100 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.PONMANI MOHANA, T.C. NO.4/215, PEARLHAM, PARAMBUKANAM, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDINGS,PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 20100 OF 2008 (P) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd July 2008 J U D G M E N T The essential grievance of the petitioner is regarding Exts. P10 and P11 orders passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions rejecting the appeal filed by her. 2. One of the reasons for rejection stated in Ext. P10 is that there is a delay of more than 5 months and as the power of the Tribunal in terms of the proviso to Rule 8 of the Tribunal Rules, is only to condone delay upto one month only. The further reason stated in Ext. P11 is regarding non-compliance with Section 509(11) of the Kerala Municipality Act in not depositing the amount. 3. In so far as Ext. P11 is concerned, admittedly the petitioner has not complied with the requirements of Section 509(11) of the Act. In the writ petition, the petitioner has raised a challenge against the provisions, but I do not see any substance in the contention raised. An appeal is a statutory remedy and it can always be circumscribed by conditions. Therefore the condition requiring deposit of the amount demanded is valid and there is absolutely nothing vitiating the same. If that be so, the non-compliance of Section 509(11) of the Kerala W.P.(C) No. 20100 OF 2008 - 2 - Municipality Act, is an accepted position. 4. Coming to Ext. P10, the reason stated for declining condonation of delay is that there is delay of more than 5 months. True that in terms of Rule 8 of the Tribunal Rules, the maximum period upto which the Tribunal can condone delay is only upto one month. Having regard to the facts stated in the application which is produced along with Ext. P9 revision, I feel, the petitioner had justifiable reasons for explaining the delay that was caused and that his revision deserves to be heard on merits. 5. Therefore, I direct that the Tribunal shall consider the revision filed by the petitioner, on condition that the petitioner remits the amount demanded in terms of Section 509(11) of the Kerala Municipality Act. Accordingly, it is directed that if the petitioner complies with the requirements of Section 509(11) of the Kerala Municipality Act by remitting the amount demanded, within 2 weeks from today, Ext. P9 revision will be restored to file and considered on merits, with notice to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE jan/-