IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 W.A.No.1791 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.6211/1996-M, DATED 22/06/2005 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT:- --------------------------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, BOARD OF REVENUE (CS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KARTHIKAPPALLY, HARIPAD. 5. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA. 6. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, CHANGANNUR. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:- ------------------------------------------------ 1. K.K.MUHAMMED AND COMPANY, KEROSENE WHOLESALE DEALER, KAYAMKULAM, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. 2. THOMAS ZACHARIA, KEROSENE WHOLESALE DEALER, HARIPPAD. 3. M.V.SAMUEL, KEROSENE WHOLESALE DEALER, MAVELIKKARA. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. ------------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1791 of 2008-E & C.M.Appln.No.797 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Basheer,J. C.M.Appln.No.797 of 2008, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is preferred by the appellant praying to condone the delay of 975 days in filing the appeal. (2) We have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents. We have also perused the affidavit filed in support of the aforesaid application. It is averred that the delay occurred since the relevant file got misplaced in the office of the Advocate General, which was in the process of shifting to the new building during the relevant period. However, it is admitted that the certified copy of the impugned judgment was received in the office on November 14, 2007. But, the appeal was preferred only on August 8, 2008. Of course, it is stated that after receipt of the records, some consultation had been held in the matter for preparation of the appeal. (3) Having perused the entire affidavit filed in support of the application and also the contentions raised by the respondents in the counter affidavit opposing the the prayer made in the application, we are not at all satisfied that the delay is liable to be condoned. Therefore, the application is rejected. W.A.No.1791 of 2008 - 2 - (4) Consequently, the Writ Appeal is also rejected. (5) However, it is made clear that the legal issue involved in the appeal is left open to be agitated in an appropriate proceeding. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/- Judge