IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WA.No. 292 of 2008 ---------------------- AGAINST JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.3017 OF 2003 DATED 30.3.2007 APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ----------------------------- 1. SATYADASAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, SINDHU VIHAR, VAKKOM PO, VAKKOM. 2. PURUSHOTHAMAN,S/O.VASU, PADINJARATHIL VEEDU, VAKKOM. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. VAKKOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAKKOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. BUILDING SECTION ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT. 4. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER OFFICE OF THE B.D.O. CHIRAYINKEEZHU TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER SOUTHERN CIRCLE, ROADS AND BRIDGES P.W.D. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No. 292 of 2008 & C.M.Appln.No.135 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. C.M.Appl.No.135 of 2008 is filed praying that the delay of 215 days in filing the writ appeal against the judgment dated 30th March, 2007 in O.P.No.3017 of 2003 be condoned. A brief affidavit is filed by the first appellant in a bid to explain the delay in preferring the appeal. It is rather difficult to understand what exactly is the explanation sought to be given in the said affidavit. Therefore, we simply extract the relevant portion of the affidavit which reads as follows: “I had entrusted the file with Advocate Mr.Nafih who was practicing at Varkala Bar. I expected the communication from him regarding the case. Mr.Nafih was in the office of Advocate Mr.Chandran at Varkala. On enquiry about the result of the O.P. in the office of Advocate Mr.Chandran he told me that he received information from the Advocate who appeared for the O.P. before the High Court in time but he could not inform me. He also told me that Advocate Nafih is no more. Mr.Nafih was handling the case. The case bundle was with the Advocate who appeared in the High Court. Therefore my address was not available with Mr.Chandran. There was a communication gap between myself and Advocate Mr.Chandran, so I could not get the information regarding the disposal of the O.P. I met Advocate Mr.Chandran last week only. In the meanwhile delay occurred.” W.A.No.292 of 2008 - 2 - 2. In our opinion, the above extracted portion of the affidavit does not constitute a valid explanation to enable this Court to condone the delay. All the respondents are served and we heard Sri.Vakkom N.Vijayan, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. In the circumstances, the application is dismissed. As a consequence, the writ appeal also stands dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns