IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15617 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- POULOSE P.T S/O. THAVOOTTY AGED 83 YEARS, HOUSE NO.4/550 CALICUT-32. BY ADV. SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF CALICUT, REP, BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF CALICUT. ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION FOR R1&2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 15617 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JUNE, 2009 JUDGMENT The only relief sought for in this writ petition is for an order to quash Ext.P5 decision of the Tribunal for Local Self Government institutions. The petitioner faces an order which was served on him on 18.6.2008. In terms of the Kerala Municipality Act, appeal against that order ought to have been filed within one month. The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to condone the delay of one month. After all that, time was lost. The petitioner filed a writ petition and obtained Ext.P4 judgment on 30.10.2008. In view of the statutory alternate remedy, this court declined to interfere and to enable the petitioner to move the appellate authority for interim orders, coercive steps on the basis of the interim order were deferred by two weeks. The petitioner neither moved the Tribunal nor obtained any interim orders within that time. He did not even file appeal within two weeks from Ext.P4 judgment. On 9.12.2008, he filed an appeal through an Advocate. The Tribunal Wpc 15617/2009 2 noticed the aforesaid relevant facts and held that this court never intended to refix the period of limitation prescribed by the statute, by the issuance of Ext.P4 judgment. The Tribunal is right. Nevertheless, the Tribunal was inclined to entertain an apeal if it were filed within 15 days from the date of Ext.P4 judgment. The petitioner had not even done that. He now turns around to blame the Tribunal of not having given further opportunity to apply for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. This is just impermissible, particularly when statutory period to file the appeal had run out sometime before the end of July, 2008 having regard to the admitted fact that the order impugned in the appeal before the Tribunal was received by the petitioner on 18.6.2008. I find no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned order. Writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, leaving open all other contentions. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/27/6