Writ petitioner challenged the Tribunal's rejection of an appeal due to excess delay. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding it was within its power to reject condonation beyond the statutory limit of 30 days. The petition was dismissed.
The writ petition was dismissed and the Tribunal's orders were upheld without any modification.
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 ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2012/1ST ASHADHA 1934
WP(C).No. 56 of 2012 (F)
PETITIONER:
DINESH MANI, 'ARCHANA',KOTTAPPURAM, PARAVOOR P.O, KOLLAM- 691 301.
BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH.
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, PARAVOOR P.O, KOLLAM, PIN- 691 301, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SECRETARY, PARAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, PARAVOOR P.O, KOLLAM- 691 301.
BY ADV. AYYAPPAN SANKAR, S.C.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).NO.56/2012-F:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXT.P1: | TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS OF PAYMENT OF LICENSE FEE PAID ON 28-02-2009 AS PER THE DEMAND IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2: | TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS OF PAYMENT OF LICENSE FEE PAID ON 28-02-2009 AS PER THE DEMAND IN FAVOUR OF HIS BROTHER SRI.VIJAYADEVAN. |
| EXT.P3: | TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LICENSE ALONG WITH REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DT.26-02-10. |
| EXT.P4: | TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28-04-2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P5: | TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT. 22-05-2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P6: | TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT. 28-07-2010 IN W.P.(C). 17433/10 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. |
| EXT.P7: | TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.24-09-10 BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P8: | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.22-09-2010 ISSUED 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P9: | COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 06-10-2010 IN W.P.(C). NO.30658/10 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. |
| EXT.P10: | TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 21-10-2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P11: | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-12-2010 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P12: | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09-11-2010 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER. |
| EXT.P13: | COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/03/2011 IN W.P.(C). NO.7928/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. |
| EXT.P14: | UNNUMBERRED APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. |
W.P.(C).NO.56/2012-F:
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
Prv.
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 56 OF 2012
===================
Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Municipality.
WPC.No.56/12
:2 :
Ext.P17. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed.
:3 :
WPC.No.56/12
would have had substance provided the petitioner had filed the writ petition within the period of limitation. Admittedly, the order impugned was Ext.P11, which was passed on 14/12/10 and WP(C) No. 7928/11 was filed only on 9/3/11, which is after the expiry of the period specified for filing appeal. Even thereafter, the appeal and the stay petitions were filed only in November, 2011 and the affidavit is seen filed only on 19/11/11. Therefore even if it is assumed that this court gave freedom to the petitioner to file appeal, he ought to have filed appeal immediately after the judgment was rendered on 28/3/11 and that also was not done. In such circumstances, I cannot find fault with the Tribunal in the view it had taken.
Writ petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal acted within its powers by rejecting the appeal due to delay condoned beyond 30 days under Rule 8(3).
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's rejection of the condonation of delay application.
Whether the petitioner's earlier dismissal for lack of alternative remedy prevents the Tribunal from entertaining a belated appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thomas Thomas v. Kottayam Municipality (2008(3) KLT 946)Referred¶45
3 provisions across 2 enactments
DINESH MANI
THE PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY
THE SECRETARY, PARAVOOR MUNICIPALITY
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
