IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 2231 of 2007() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3884/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE WP ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, (CUSTODIAN OF ECOLOGICALLY FRAGILE LANDS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. BY SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN,ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERRAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.R.RAVI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE WP -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THOMAS JACOB, PLAKKATTU HOUSE, PAYYANAMON P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. GEORGE JACOB, 1096, 12TH A MAIN, HAL, II STAGE, INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 2231 of 2007() APPENDIX APPELLANTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-1: PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE ACTUAL STATE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION. ANNEXURE-II: COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-III: COPY OF FORM 1 AND MAHAZAR IN OR.NO.12/2007 & ENGLISH TRANSLATION. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 2231 of 2007 & C.M.Appl.No.1000 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. This Writ Appeal is filed with inordinate delay challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants to consider the exemption claimed by the respondents for their land from the purview of the Act 21 of 2005. 2. Since the respondents are not served and some of them are no more, we heard the Writ Appeal on merit, while considering the delay condonation petition. 3. After hearing the Government Pleader and on going through the judgment of the learned Single Judge, what we notice is that no part of the judgment is against the State and its authorities, except the statement of the learned Single Judge that status quo in regard to possession and management should be maintained. In fact there is prohibitory order against the WA.2231/07 2 respondents from even cutting tress from the property pending decision by the Government. The judgment was rendered on 5.2.2007. If the appellants were not indifferent they could have passed orders atleast by May, 2007, i.e., 4 ½ years back. We do not find that any purpose will be served by entertaining the Writ Appeal, except for the sake of allowing challenge against every order of Single Judges in appeal. The delay condonation petition and the appeal are therefore devoid of any merit or bonafides. We accordingly dismiss both the delay condonation petition and the appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE vgs