IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1261 of 2010()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Petitioner
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
Vs
1. MOLLYAMMA ANTONY,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :28/07/2010
O R D E R
J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.A.No.1261 of 2010 & C.M.Appln.No.621 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
J.Chelameswar, CJ.
C.M.Appln.No.621 of 2010 is filed with a prayer to
condone the delay of 682 days in filing the appeal against the
judgment, dated 20.6.2008, in W.P.(C) No.18053 of 2005. The
substance of the explanation given in the affidavit filed in support
of the petition is that State lost two years in consulting various
persons as to whether appeal should be preferred in the matter
or not. At paragraph 5 of the affidavit, it is stated as follows:-
“5. It is submitted that the delay in filing
the appeal was due to the time taken for
consultation with District Collector, Alappuzha,
Taxes Department, Law Department and
Additional Advocate General regarding scope for
appeal. It has not come to the notice of
Government that the appeal time was over by
this time. It is also submitted that the delay in
filing the appeal was not due to any wilful
negligence or laches on the part of the
petitioner.”
W.A.No.1261 of 2010 & C.M.Appln.No.621 of 2010
2
2. The most interesting part of the narration is that
the Under Secretary to the Government of Kerala,
Mr.R.P.Raheem, who is the deponent of this affidavit made it
bold to put on record that “it has not come to the notice of
Government that the appeal time was over by this time”.
3. The period of limitation to file a writ appeal is 30
days from the relevant date.
4. The certified copy of the judgment which is sought
to be appealed against was admittedly received by the
Government on 8.8.2008. On the face of such fact, we simply
fail to understand as to how the deponent believes or states that
the Government has not noticed of the fact that the period of
limitation for preferring the appeal is over. The above extracted
sentence to our view only demonstrates the absolute
carelessness in filing the affidavit apart from utter lack of respect
for the Rule of Law on the part of the deponent of the affidavit.
He also believes that the delay is not due to any willful
negligence or laches. If the various offices of the State consume
a period of two years on the question whether an appeal should
W.A.No.1261 of 2010 & C.M.Appln.No.621 of 2010
3
be preferred in the given case or not, where the period of
limitation is 30 days, it is hard to accept that there is neither
negligence nor laches on the part of various functionaries
involved. Lastly, we “admire” the temerity of the deponent in
stating that “it is only just and proper that this Honourable
Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 682 days in filing
the above appeal”. Such a statement, in one view, is also
capable of being construed as a statement dictating the course of
action to this Court.
In the circumstances, C.M.Appln.No.621 of 2010 is
dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/- to the Kerala State Legal
Services Committee. Consequently, the writ appeal is also
dismissed.
J.CHELAMESWAR,
Chief Justice
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge.
nj.