IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1971 of 2008()
1. T.SASIDHARAN
... Petitioner
2. T.JAYARAJAN,
Vs
1. CORPORATION OF CALICUT
... Respondent
2. THE HEALTH OFFICER
For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO
For Respondent :SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :29/10/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.ANo.1971 of 2008 &
C.M.Appln.No.863 of 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 29th day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17508 of 2005 dated 20th June, 2005.
(2) There is a delay of nearly 1100 days in filing the writ
appeal. Therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is
filed to condone the delay in filing the writ appeal.
(3) The appellants before us were the petitioners in
W.P.(C) No.17508 of 2005. In the said writ petition, they have called in
question the correctness or otherwise of Ext.P3 notice issued by the
Corporation of Kozhikode (‘the Corporation’ for short).
(4) The petitioners are licensees of certain shop premises
belonging to the Corporation.
(5) The learned Single Judge taking note of the statements
made by the petitioners’ learned counsel and also the learned counsel
appearing for the Corporation, has thought it fit to reject the writ petition.
While doing so, the learned Single Judge has made two pertinent
observations, firstly that, the petitioners are only licensees and they have
W.A.No.1971 of 2008
2
no right to continue to do business in a place which the Corporation
intends to demolish. Secondly, it is stated that as a licensee the
petitioners cannot contend that unless they are provided with alternate
accommodation, the Corporation cannot direct them to vacate the places
which are in their occupation. The writ petition was disposed of by this
Court in the presence of the petitioners’ learned counsel.
(6) This Court can condone the delay, if for any reason, the
petitioners were not aware of the decision passed against them which is
adverse to their interest. This Court can also condone the delay only if it is
satisfied that the explanation offered by the petitioner for condoning the
delay is satisfactory.
(7) In the instant case, as we have already stated, the
petitioners were fully aware of the orders passed by this Court . If for any
reason, they were of the opinion that the orders passed by this Court is
adverse to their interest, they ought to have questioned the said order
before appropriate forum within a reasonable time. That has not been
done by the petitioners.
(8) The delay, in our opinion, is fatal to this proceedings,
since the delay has not been properly explained by the appellants.
W.A.No.1971 of 2008
3
(9) In that view of the matter, we cannot condone the delay
in filing the writ appeal. Accordingly, the application requires to be
rejected and it is rejected.
(10) Consequently, the writ appeal also stands rejected.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
vns