IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 W.A.No.1939 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.28426/2006-H, DATED 10/08/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER:- ---------------------------------------- KURIAKOSE SABU, P.W.D. CONTRACTOR, VADAKKEVILIKKIZHAKKATHIL (KAVUMKAL), ANGADI P.O., RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, OFFICE OF THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, KOLLAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, ACHENCOVIL DIVISION, KOLLAM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KONNI DIVISION, KOLLAM. 4. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, ACHENCOVIL, KOLLAM. 5. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MANNARAPPARA RANGE, KOLLAM. R1 TO R5 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1939 of 2008 & C.M.Appln.No.853 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. In filing the writ appeal there is a delay of 378 days. Therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed to condone the delay. 2. In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that, it is because of the non-intimation of the disposal of the writ petition by the learned counsel who was appearing in the matter, the petitioner could not approach this Court within time by filing an appeal before this Court. 3. The appellant is trying to find fault with his learned counsel. In the normal circumstances, once a matter is disposed of by the Court, the learned counsel would inform the parties. Whether such information was communicated or not is not stated in the application filed. 4. Having gone through the application and the affidavit W.A.No.1939/2008 -2- filed in support of the application, we are of the firm opinion that the delay is not satisfactorily explained. Therefore, the delay in filing the writ appeal cannot be condoned by us. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay requires to be rejected and it is rejected. 5. Consequently the writ appeal is also rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (THOMAS P.JOSEPH) JUDGE MS