IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 W.A.No. 1431 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.5975/2000 DATED 20/03/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- M/S.INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.SUNNY K.PETER. BY ADV. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION (CENTRAL), K.S.E.B., ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, POWER DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, TRIVANDRUM. R1 & R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN R3 & R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1431 of 2008 & C.M.Appln.No.637 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 11th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P. No.5975 of 2000 dated 20th March, 2007. While disposing of the original petition the learned Single Judge has followed a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.975 of 2001 and connected matters. 2. Since there is delay in filing the writ appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is also filed along with an affidavit. In the affidavit two reasons are stated by the applicant for condonation of delay, firstly, that because of its poor financial position it could not prefer the appeal in time and secondly it is stated that the writ appeal on which reliance was placed by the learned Single Judge has now been reversed by the apex Court and therefore, there is some delay in filing the writ appeal. 3. In our opinion, the explanation so offered by the applicant cannot be accepted by us. Applicant is a hotel and not an individual. A hotel cannot come and plead that it has some financial difficulties in preferring the writ appeal. For filing a writ appeal it does not cost much. Secondly, a fence sitter, in our opinion, is not entitled to the discretionary W.A.No.1431 of 2008 & C.M.Appln.No.637 of 2008 2 relief of this Court. If for any reason, the learned Single Judge had rejected the writ petition following an earlier Division Bench decision of this Court, the petitioner ought to have filed an appropriate appeal within a reasonable time and then only it can take advantage of the orders passed by the apex Court subsequently. 4. In view of all these, the explanation offered by the applicant cannot be accepted by us. Therefore, the prayer made in the application for condonation of the delay in filing the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. 5. Consequently, the writ appeal stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns