The petitioner, a trust, challenged Tribunal orders dismissing an appeal against construction stoppage orders due to inexcusable delay. Relying on precedent that Article 226 cannot resurrect time-barred claims, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930
WP(C).No. 1756 of 2009(H) -------------------------
PETITIONER(S): ---------------
V.N.PUBLIC HEALTH AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING TRUSTEE-SECRETARY, DR.O.KANNAPPAN, NO.25,JAWAHAR MAIN ROAD, NRT NAGAR THENI-625531,TAMILNADU.
BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN SMT.S.ARCHANA
RESPONDENT(S):
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P(C).No.1756 of 2009
==================
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a Trust which aspires to start a self financing medical college at Palakkad. They started construction of a building after obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Panchayat. Pursuant thereto, orders were issued under Section 235 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act to stop the construction. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent closed down the premises and put a seal on the lock of the building preventing entry into the building. The petitioner filed W.P.(C). No.37571/2008, in which the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 276(4) of the Panchayat Raj Act before the Tribunal along with a petition to condone delay. Since the delay was beyond the condonable limit prescribed in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Rules, the Tribunal dismissed the petition to condone delay and consequently the appeal also. Exts.P9 and P10 are those orders. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P9 and P10 orders in this writ petition.
w.p.c.1756/09 2
decision referred to therein also lays down that Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to resurrect a time barred claim. That being so, I am not inclined to entertain the challenge against Exts.P9 and P10 orders. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
sdk+
Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to resurrect a time barred claim when the Tribunal cannot entertain an appeal due to delay beyond condonable limits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thomas Thomas v. Kottayam MunicipalityRelied on¶23
_Thomas Thomas v. Kottayam Municipality_ [2008 (3) KLT 964]
3 provisions across 2 enactments
V.N.PUBLIC HEALTH AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING TRUSTEE-SECRETARY DR.O.KANNAPPAN
THE STAE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION
THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT THE DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYAT
THE PUDUSSERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
S.SIRI JAGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
