IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10504 of 2009(G)
1. R.PADMINI, W/O.VEERANANDAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT
4. THE ESTATE OFFICER (SECRETARY),
5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :31/03/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.10504 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P13, an
order passed by the District Collector rejecting the
application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay
in filing Ext.P7 appeal.
2. The facts of the case are that, Ext.P5 is an order
passed by the Estate Officer, the 4th respondent, for the
eviction of the petitioner in terms of the provisions
contained under the Kerala Public Buildings (Evicting of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1968. Against the said order
petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal before the District Collector,
the 2nd respondent along with Ext.P8 application for stay
and Ext.P9 application to condone 350 days delay in filing
the appeal.
WP(c).N.10504/09 2
3. On the ground that the 2nd respondent has no power
to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the appeal was
rejected by Ext.P10. That was challenged before this court in
WP(c).No.23747/08. The writ petition was disposed of holding
that the 2nd respondent has power to condone the delay and
Ext.P11 is the judgment. Accordingly the matter was
considered and by Ext.P13, the application for condonation of
delay was rejected by the District Collector on the ground that
he was not satisfied with the reasons stated. It is challenging
Ext.P13 that the writ petition is filed.
On a reading of Ext.P13, I am not satisfied that there has
been a proper exercise of power by the District Collector. In
my view the reasons stated for condonation of delay as
contained in Ext.P9 prima facie shows that the petitioner was
justified in the belated filing of the appeal and the petitioner
ought to have been given the chance to contest the case on
merit. Therefore I quash Ext.P15 and direct the District
Collector to consider Ext.P7 appeal with notice to the
WP(c).N.10504/09 3
Petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within
8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the
judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).N.10504/09 4