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 WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 W.A.No. 1971 of 2008 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17508/2005 DATED 20/06/2005 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------- 1. T.SASIDHARAN PARAMBATHPARAMBIL VEEDU, PEOPLES ROAD, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE. 2. T.JAYARAJAN, JASNA, 1/3361 B, ALIYAR VAYAL, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY CALICUT. 2. THE HEALTH OFFICER CORPORATION OF CALICUT, CALICUT. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.D.BABU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.ANo.1971 of 2008 & C.M.Appln.No.863 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 29th 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.17508 of 2005 dated 20th June, 2005. (2) There is a delay of nearly 1100 days in filing the writ appeal. Therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed to condone the delay in filing the writ appeal. (3) The appellants before us were the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.17508 of 2005. In the said writ petition, they have called in question the correctness or otherwise of Ext.P3 notice issued by the Corporation of Kozhikode ('the Corporation' for short). (4) The petitioners are licensees of certain shop premises belonging to the Corporation. (5) The learned Single Judge taking note of the statements made by the petitioners' learned counsel and also the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, has thought it fit to reject the writ petition. While doing so, the learned Single Judge has made two pertinent observations, firstly that, the petitioners are only licensees and they have W.A.No.1971 of 2008 2 no right to continue to do business in a place which the Corporation intends to demolish. Secondly, it is stated that as a licensee the petitioners cannot contend that unless they are provided with alternate accommodation, the Corporation cannot direct them to vacate the places which are in their occupation. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court in the presence of the petitioners' learned counsel. (6) This Court can condone the delay, if for any reason, the petitioners were not aware of the decision passed against them which is adverse to their interest. This Court can also condone the delay only if it is satisfied that the explanation offered by the petitioner for condoning the delay is satisfactory. (7) In the instant case, as we have already stated, the petitioners were fully aware of the orders passed by this Court . If for any reason, they were of the opinion that the orders passed by this Court is adverse to their interest, they ought to have questioned the said order before appropriate forum within a reasonable time. That has not been done by the petitioners. (8) The delay, in our opinion, is fatal to this proceedings, since the delay has not been properly explained by the appellants. W.A.No.1971 of 2008 3 (9) In that view of the matter, we cannot condone the delay in filing the writ appeal. Accordingly, the application requires to be rejected and it is rejected. (10) Consequently, the writ appeal also stands rejected. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns