IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2807 of 2008(H) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. E. PRASEEJA, MANOHAR JEWELLERIES, JEWEL HOUSE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. M.P. REEJA, MANOHAR JEWELLERIES, JEWEL HOUSE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. C.V. RAJENDRAN, MANOHAR JEWELLERIES, JEWEL HOUSE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. C.V. MANOHAR, MANOHAR JEWELLERIES, JEWEL HOUSE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. MANOHAR JEWELLERIES, JEWEL HOUSE, PAYYANNUR, REPRESENTED BY C.V.MANOHAR PARTNER, MANOHAR JEWELLERIES,PAYYANNUR,KANNUR DIST BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. PAYYANNUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,PAYYANNUR MUNCIPALITY PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. TRIBUNAL FOR KERALA LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 2807 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 23rd January, 2008 JUDGMENT Under Ext.P21 order the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions has rejected petitioners application for condoning the delay which had been caused in the matter of representing Ext.P20 appeal. The Tribunal obviously thought that it has no power to condone the delay caused in the matter even for representing the appeal. The Tribunal has also pointed out that though Ext.P18 appeal which had been originally filed was filed on time and the petitioners were directed to rectify the defects in that appeal, instead of rectifying the defects in Ext.P18 appeal, what the petitioners had done was to file a fresh appeal itself in Ext.P20 proper form. This fresh appeal Ext.P20, the Tribunal rightly noticed was filed out of time. Even though the Tribunal was technically correct in its view that Ext.P20 was a fresh appeal and for granting the application for condonation of delay, the same could not be construed an application for condoning the delay in the matter of representation, I am of the view that on the facts and circumstances which attended on this case, Ext.P20 appeal which has been filed in continuation of Ext.P18 is liable to be treated as an appeal filed on time. Accordingly, I set aside W.P.C.No.2807/08 - 2 - Ext.P21 and condone the delay caused in the matter of filing Ext.P20 appeal and direct the Tribunal to dispose of Ext.P20 appeal in accordance with law after issuing notice to the 1st respondent- Municipality and after calling for the records. The appeal shall be disposed of by the Tribunal at the earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving copy of this judgment. Considering the above directions, there will be a further direction that the 1st respondent-Municipality not to implement Exts.P8 and P10 for one month. The petitioners are given liberty to apply to the Tribunal for extension of the stay order. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE