IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 693 of 2009()
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Petitioner
2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
3. THE PRINCIPAL, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KERALA
Vs
1. S.SUSHAMA, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :10/09/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN &
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = == == = = =
C.M.APPLN. NO.104/2009 & R.P. NO. 693 /2009
IN W.A. 5/2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 10TH DAY OF September, 2009.
O R D E R
Raman, J.
Heard. Delay in filing this Review Petition is condoned. C.M.
Application No. 104/2009 stands allowed.
2. The writ appeal was filed belatedly and hence an application
for condonation of the delay of 865 days was filed supported by an
affidavit. After hearing the parties, this Court did not find good reasons
for condonation of the delay. Accordingly, the delay petition was
dismissed. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. True, in the
judgment, incidentally a reference is made to a decision of this Court in
State of Kerala v. Thomas Oommen (2003(1) KLT 7) to justify the
decision of the learned single Judge that the date of effective advice is
the date for reckoning seniority. Since the delay was not condoned,
whatever that is stated regarding the merits of the contentions by itself
R.P. 693/2009 2
is no good ground for review. Since the review is not a re-hearing of the
matter and even otherwise when the delay is not condoned, resultantly
appeal is not entertained. So no grounds made out for review.
Dismissed.
P.R. RAMAN,
(JUDGE)
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
(JUDGE)
KNC/-