IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19348 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ BAIJU MATHEW, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, PERINGAZHA KARA, MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.19348/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitoner and the Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipality. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P3 and P6. Ext.P3 is an order passed by the Municipality exercising the power under Section 406(3) of the Kerala Municipalities Act. Petitioner filed Ext.P4 appeal before the Tribunal along with Ext.P5 application for condonation of delay. That application has been rejected by Ext.P6. Consequently the appeal itself has been rejected. 3. True, in view of Rule 8 of the Tribunal Rules, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for the view has taken. However, in view of the fact that Ext.P2 is for demolition of a structure made by the petitioner, expect for justifiable reasons the 2 appeal could not have been delayed. On facts, I am satisfied that ends of justice require that the appeal should be considered on merits. 4. In order to enable the Tribunal to do so, I quash Ext.P6 and direct that Ext.P4 appeal shall be considered on merit and pass appropriate orders thereon. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 3