IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16908 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER --------------- O.V.SANTHI, D/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN,RESIDING AT ODUVATHATTIL HOUSE, MUNDUR AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP SRI.MATHEWS RAJU RESPONDENT: --------------- THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER PALAKKAD 678 001. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BENOY VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16908 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD TO THE PETITIONER DATED 12.05.2009. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DTED 30.06.2010. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 15.03.2011. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P(C) No. 16908 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd June , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext. P2 order dated 30.06.2010 passed by the respondent whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for cutting and removing certain teak trees was allegedly not considered properly, but for granting permission only to a limited extent, which made the petitioner to file Ext. P3 representation and to approach this Court for disposal of Ext. P3. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Going by the materials on record, it is seen that Ext. P2 order was passed by the respondent after considering the facts and figures nearly one year back and the petitioner was simply sleeping over the issue. It is on a fine morning that the petitioner chose to file Ext.P3 representation and has approached this Court as a matter of revelation, seeking to dispose of Ext. W.P(C) No. 16908 OF 2011 2 P3. It is settled law, as declared by the Apex Court in S.S. Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1990 SC 10) that filing of repeated representation cannot stretch the cause of action. This court finds that, since there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and that, the cause of action, if any, has become stale. In the above circumstances, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that this will not stand in the way of the petitioner, if there is any change in the circumstances after passing the impugned order, which could be caused to be considered and adjudicated by filing a fresh and proper application before the concerned authority, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk