IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36923 of 2010(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SUGATHA KUMAR T.V.,UTHUNINNA PUTHEN VEEDU, NELLIKKAKUZHY,KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.D.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. KANJIRAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,PIN-695 131 2. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN-695 001 3. K.JAYARAJAN,DHANYA, NELLIKKAKUZHI,KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 133 R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.36923 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenging Ext.P3 order dated 22.9.2009 issued by the Secretary of the Kanjiramkulam Grama Panchayat, the petitioner initially filed W.P.(C) No.21574 of 2010 in this Court. When the writ petition came up for admission on 12.7.2010, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition reserving liberty with the petitioner to challenge Ext.P3 in appeal. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Appeal No.871 of 2010 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. In that appeal, the petitioner averred that he came to know about Ext.P2 order which was impugned in the appeal only on 6.9.2010. The third respondent herein objected to the delay being condoned. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and held that challenging Ext.P3, the petitioner had earlier filed O.P.No.1118 of 2009 before the Honourable Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, that the said petition was disposed of on 4.1.2010 with a direction to file an appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order, that he thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.21574 of 2010 in this Court, that the said writ petition was dismissed as W.P.(C) No.36923 of 2010 2 withdrawn on 12.7.2010 and that it was thereafter that the instant appeal was filed before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal held that the mere fact that a copy of Ext.P3 order produced by the petitioner along with the appeal was applied for and obtained by him on 6.9.2010 cannot be a reason to contend that till 6.9.2010, he was unaware of the order passed by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat and that the petitioner has not explained the delay between 4.1.2010, when the Honourable Ombudsman dismissed O.P.No.1118 of 2009 and 29.9.2010, the date on which the instant appeal was filed. 2. It is evident from the findings and observations in Ext.P5 order that the challenge to Ext.P3 is highly belated. The fact that the petitioner was aware of Ext.P3 order even in the year 2009 is evident from the fact that he had challenged that order in O.P.No.1118 of 2009 before the Honourable Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. That original petition was dismissed on 4.1.2010. He thereafter waited till July 2010 to file W.P.(C) No.21574 of 2010 in this Court. That writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.7.2010. He thereafter filed an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions on 29.9.2010 after obtaining W.P.(C) No.36923 of 2010 3 another copy of Ext.P3. In my opinion, the very conduct of the petitioner itself establishes beyond doubt that the challenge to Ext.P3 before the Tribunal was belated. In such circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal that the petitioner has not explained the inordinate delay in filing the appeal does not merit interference. Further, in view of Rule 8 of the Tribunal for the Kerala Local Self Government Institutions Rules, 1999, the Tribunal could not have condoned the delay of more than 30 days in filing the appeal. I, therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.