IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15246 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASOKAN VASU, S/O.VASU, AGED 34, PRATHIBHAS, NAVAIKULAM VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. EDAVA GRAMA PANCHAYAT (SPECIAL GRADE), EDAVA VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, EDAVA P.O., (VIA) VARKALA REP. BY SECRETARY. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPT., GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.15246 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed Ext.P3 application to condone the delay in instituting Ext.P2 appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Ext.P3 appears to show that there is a delay of 36 days in presenting the appeal. By the calculation going by the averments in the affidavit accompanying Ext.P3 petition, may be that the delay was of 32 days. Proviso to Rule 8 of the Tribunal for Kerala Self Government Institutions Rules, 1999 empowers the Tribunal to condone delay of only one month. Obviously, the appeal was out of time and beyond the period of time that would have been condoned by the Tribunal invoking its authority under the proviso to Rule 8. No other grounds are raised. The only challenge is to the decision contained in Ext.P4 wherein the Tribunal has specifically stated the reason for the said decision. There is no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in that. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed leaving open all other issues. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.3/6.