IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 W.A.No.2139 of 2008 ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28071/2008 DATED 25/09/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ A.V.JOSE, MANAGING PARTNER, ALUKKAS JEWELLERY, T.C.NO.37/890, PADMA PADAM, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (E) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.ANo.2139 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 30th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.28071 of 2008 dated 25th September, 2008. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. (2) Ext.P3 is an order passed by the second respondent Corporation in exercise of their powers under the Kerala Municipalities Act. Aggrieved by the said order Ext.P4 appeal came to be filed by the petitioner before the concerned Minister and the same was transmitted to the State Government for consideration and decision. Ext.P7 order came to be passed by the State Government on 19.4.204 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by Exts.P3 and P7 orders passed, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.13973 of 2004. The learned Single Judge by his orders dated 6th June, 2008 has rejected the writ petition on merits, but on a request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has permitted the petitioner to approach the Tribunal and further has observed that the petitioner may do so if the same is permissible in law. (3) Aggrieved by the orders and directions issued by the W.A.No.2139 of 2008 2 learned Single Judge, the petitioner was before this Court in W.A.No.1581 of 2008. We, by our orders dated 5th August, 2008 has rejected the writ appeal and confirmed the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Tribunal and along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay was also filed. The said application (I.A.No.874 of 2008) was rejected by the Tribunal by its orders dated 18th August, 2008 and in that they have stated as under: “Heard. Delay of six years and twenty two days in filing the Appeal is sought to be condoned by this I.A. As per proviso to Rule 8 of Tribunal Rules this Tribunal has only limited power of condoning delay up to one month only. Hence dismissed.” (4) Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal in I.A.No.874 of 2008, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.28071 of 2008. In the writ petition filed, the prayers made are as under: Firstly to quash Ext.P13 order passed by the Tribunal in I.A.No.874 of 2008, secondly for a direction to the Tribunal to reconsider the said I.A. and pass fresh orders in accordance with law and lastly to restrain the respondents/Municipal authorities from taking any steps in demolishing the building put up by the petitioner in execution of Exts.P3 and P4 (sic P7) orders. (5) The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition W.A.No.2139 of 2008 3 on merits by his orders dated 25.9.2008 and in that has stated that Exts.P3 and P7 orders were the subject matter of the earlier writ petition and this Court has specifically rejected the request so made. Therefore, Exts.P3 and P7 orders cannot be once again re-agitated by the petitioner before this Court. (6) The appellant herein is calling in question the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge. (7) Sri.V.Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that it is only after the disposal of the writ petition and the writ appeal filed, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal and that too with the direction of this Court and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and should have decided the appeal on merits. (8) We see no merit in the contention canvassed by the learned senior counsel. The Tribunal can condone the delay in exercise of its powers under Rule 8 of the Tribunal Rules only to an extent of one month from the date of the impugned order passed. Further, the statute does not give any discretion to the Tribunal to condone the delay, if the appellant/the person aggrieved files an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, even after satisfying itself that the person concerned had genuine reasons for not approaching the Tribunal within the W.A.No.2139 of 2008 4 time stipulated in the Tribunal Rules. In the absence of such a discretion the Tribunal was fully justified in rejecting the appeal filed after nearly six and a half years. (9) In the writ petition filed, the petitioner ought to have requested this Court for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal instead of requesting this Court to quash Ext.P13 order passed by the Tribunal. Such a thing has not been done in the instant case. (10) Keeping all these aspects of the matter in view and also keeping in view that Exts.P3 and P7 orders have become final in view of the disposal of W.P.(C) No.13973 of 2004 disposed of on 6th June, 2008, he learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was fully justified in rejecting the writ petition. Interference with the said order is not called for. (11) Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. (12) Consequently, I.A.No.932 of 2008 stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns