IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5881 of 2009(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- ALPHONSA MATHEW, NEEROLICKAL HOUSE, PO.PERUMPALLOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. ARAKUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY ARAKUZHA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SECRETARY, ARAKUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH ARAKUZHA, ERNAKULAM. 3. CHETTOOR MATHAI VARKEY, PERINGAZHA KARA, MARADY VILLAGE, PERUMPALLOOR PO., MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.5881 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P21 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions whereby the petitioner’s appeal was refused to be entertained on the ground that the appeal is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed. The order challenged before the Tribunal was received by the petitioner on 19.9.1996. The petitioner has filed the appeal on 13.8.2008, almost twelve years after receipt of the order. The petitioner’s contention is that all along the petitioner had been prosecuting his claim before this Court and only after this Court finally disposed of the matter without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file appeal, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. It is settled law that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain a petition to condone the delay beyond a period of thirty days. Even otherwise the proceedings before this Court ended by Ext.P19 order of the Division Bench dated 17.1.2007. W.P.(c)No.5881/09 2 Two years have already elapsed after that order also. Therefore, the challenge against Ext.P21 order is hopelessly belated and no plausible explanation is also forthcoming. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on account of unexplained delay and laches. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.5881/09 3