IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 3832 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SREE GANESHA APARTMENTS OWNERS ASSOCIATION, NEW AGRAHARAM ROAD, PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.K.VIJAYACHANDRAN. BY ADV. SRI.N.R.SURESH KUMAR SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.3832/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE ASSOCIATION EXT.P2. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AP NO.R/4/9/07-08 (R4-22740/07) DT. 17.1.08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P3. COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED TO THE SECRETARY LSGD., DT.14.2.08 EXT.P4. COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LCAL SELF GOVT. INSTITUTIONS EXT.P5. COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT.P4 EXT.P6. COPY OF THE ORDER DT.21.11.2009 IN I.A. NO.1308/2009 (WRONGLY TYPED AS 1308/08) OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT. INSTITUTIONS EXT.P7. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.29212/RC2/09 LSGD DT.28.5.09 ISSUED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. LSGD, STATE OF KERALA PA TO JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.3832 of 2010 (D) -------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an apartment owners association. 2. Against the order levying building tax, they filed an appeal before the appellate committee. The appeal was rejected. Although, remedy against the appellate order was to file an appeal before the Tribunal, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 before the Government. By Ext.P7 order dated 28/05/2009, the Government returned the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 revision with an application to condone delay of 643 days, before the Tribunal. The revision is dated 21/11/2009. By Ext.P6 order, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the Tribunal has power to condone delay up to one month only. It is challenging Ext.P6 order, this writ petition is filed. 3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge Ext.P6 is that Ext.P3 appeal was pending before the Government. According to him, though before a wrong WP(C) No.3832/2010 -2- forum, he was prosecuting his appeal and therefore, the period when the appeal was pending before the Government, should have been excluded by the Tribunal. 4. In my view, even if this contention of the petitioner is accepted, the petitioner cannot succeed in this writ petition. This is for the reason that Ext.P7 order of the Government is dated 28/05/2009. In spite of this order, the petitioner filed the revision only on 21/11/2009. Therefore, even if delay is counted from 28/05/2009, the petitioner had filed the revision after the expiry of the period of 30 days prescribed for filing revision. Therefore, even if the Tribunal had condoned delay of further 30 days, still, the revision was filed beyond the time prescribed in the Rules. If so, the Tribunal could have only rejected the revision. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg