The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal and a C.M. application. The bench found that the appellants failed to properly explain a 1060-day delay caused by administrative negligence and the pandemic, thus refusing to condone the default.
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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1943
WA NO. 979 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2017 IN WP(C) 32888/2016 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN W.P.(C):
1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND 3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):
R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN R3 BY SRI.AJEESH K SASI
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No. 979/2021
: 2 :
S. MANIKUMAR, CJ & SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
-------------------------------------------------------
C.M. Appln. No. 1 of 2021 &
W.A No. 979 of 2021
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2021.
ORDER
S. MANIKUMAR,CJ.
Instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.03.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 32888 of 2016, by which the learned single Judge while setting aside Ext. P6 order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the Thiruvilwamala Grama Panchayat, represented by its Secretary, 3rd respondent, directed the respondents to number the building of writ petitioners and issue an occupancy certificate without insisting on any development permit or lay out plan from the writ petitioners, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
“3. lt is submitted that the judgment was pronounced on 21.03.2017. The office of the Advocate General submitted application
W.A. No. 979/2021
: 3 :
for certified copy on 24.03.2017 and the certified copy was ready on 25.032017. The certified copy was delivered on 24.04.2017. The Writ Appeal ought to have been filed on or before 21.04.2017.
W.A. No. 979/2021
: 4 :
Appeal which is not intentional or willful. It is necessary in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 1060 days in filing the Writ Appeal.”
W.A. No. 979/2021 : 5 :
requesting to file an appeal. The averments further disclose that the delay occurred is also attributed to Covid-19. Moreover, construction has been completed in the year 2015.
As pointed out in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the view that the delay is not properly explained and the appellants are not diligent in filing the appeal. Hence, we are not inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, C.M. Application No. 1 of 2021 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
sd/- S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.
sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 1060 days in filing the writ appeal is condonable given the explanation of administrative exigencies and the Covid-19 lockdown.
Whether the Writ Appeal should be allowed to proceed after the dismissal of the condonation application.
Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Secretariat
Town Planning Officer
Ibrahim
Halid
Thiruvilwamala Grama Panchayat
S. Manikumar
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
