IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 10482 of 2008(W) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ----------------- VITLANDAKATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL JASMINE THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VITLANDAKATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL MOOSANKUTTY S/O.ABDULLAH, ELAYADATH HOUSE, PALOTH VAYAL, VALAPATTONAM P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.R.JAYAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY VALAPPATTANOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH VALAPATTANOM, KANNUR. 2. THE PRESIDENT, VALAPPATTANOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH VALAPATTANOM, KANNUR. 3. VALAPPATTANOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH VALAPATTANOM,KANNUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADV. SRI.C.KRISHNAN(KANNUR) FOR R1 SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR FOR R1 SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA FOR R1 SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH DATED 28.7.2007. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 18.2.2008 CONDONE THE DELAY. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.3.2008 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. VKM ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 10482 OF 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Exhibit P3 order is under challenge. By this order, passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, petition for condoning the delay of 49 days in filing an appeal was rejected by the Tribunal. The reason for rejection is that in terms of the proviso to Rule 8 of the Tribunal Rules, the Tribunal has power to condone the delay only up to one month and since the delay was in excess there of, the Tribunal had no option, but to dismiss the I.A. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a building permit was granted to him and that on the strength of the building permit the petitioner had commenced construction of a residential building. It is stated that much later, on the basis that, the land in question falls with the Coastal Regulation Zone, the building permit was cancelled by the Panchayath. According to him by the time the order was issued, about 20 lakhs was already invested and it was in these circumstances that he had to file an appeal. However, as he was away from his native place, the appeal could be filed only with W.P.(C) No. 10482/2008 2 delay and that was the reason for filing the application for condonation of delay. 3. In view of the provisions contained in the proviso to Rule 8 of the Rules, the view taken by the Tribunal can not be faulted. However on facts I am satisfied that the petitioner's request for condonation of delay was a justified one. This is all the more so for the reason that the consequence of the cancellation of the building permit is the demolition of the structure that he has already constructed and unless the delay is condoned and appeal is heard on merit, great prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. Therefore, I quash Ext. P3 and direct that the Tribunal shall entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner against P1 Order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing that the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions shall restore the appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext. P1 and hear the same with notice to the petitioner and others and dispose the matter on merits. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vkm