IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA.No. 488 of 2008()
1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE
... Petitioner
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Vs
1. KURUMBA, AGED 78, W/O KOLLIKKARA
... Respondent
2. SANKARAN, AGED 54 PUNARAKAVEETTIL,
3. SHEELA, AGED 44 W/O PUNARKA SANKARAN,
4. SAJEEVAN AGED 36,
5. JOSEPH, AGED 49 PROPRIETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :09/07/2008
O R D E R
K.P. Balachandran, J.
---------------------------
C.M.Appl.No.408 of 2008 &
R.S.A.No.488 of 2008
---------------------------
JUDGMENT
This is an application for condonation of delay
of 103 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal.
The judgment under appeal was pronounced on
28.6.2007. Copy thereof was applied for only on
5.7.2007. Stamp papers called for on 10.9.2007 were
produced only on 13.9.2007. Though 18.9.2007 was
fixed as the date to appear and receive the copy,
copy was taken delivery of only on 20.9.2007 and
the appeal is filed only on 24.3.2008.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the
C.M. Application the Assistant Executive Engineer,
attached to the Office of the Standing Counsel for
Kerala State Electricity Board (K.S.E.Board), has
offered explanation for the delay to the effect
that the certified copy of the impugned judgment,
taken delivery of on 20.9.2007, was forwarded to
the Secretary, K.S.E.Board, Thiruvananthapuram;
RSA 488/08 2
that the Secretary placed the matter before the
Legal Advisor and Disciplinary Enquiry Officer for
his legal opinion; that the said Officer opined to
file second appeal before this Court; that
thereafter the matter was placed before the K.S.E.
Board and on 22.10.2007 the K.S.E.Board accorded
sanction to file second appeal; that thereafter the
impugned judgment was forwarded to him; that he
handed over the certified copy of the impugned
judgment to the senior Standing Counsel for K.S.E.
Board to file second appeal along with the lower
court records on 2.11.2007, but unfortunately, the
case bundle was misplaced in the office of the
Standing Counsel and it was traced out only on
5.3.2008 and the appeal was filed on 24.3.2008,
with a delay of 103 days and that the delay has to
be condoned, as there is no wilful laches or
negligence on the part of the K.S.E.Board.
3. It is worthy to note that the deponent is
an Assistant Executive Engineer, attached to the
RSA 488/08 3
Office of the Standing Counsel for K.S.E.Board
itself. He has no other work other than to look
after the cases in the Office of the Standing
Counsel. There is no meaning in his saying that he
handed over the files to the Standing Counsel on
2.11.2007 and it happened to be misplaced and it
was traced out only on 5.3.2008. The period in
between is more than four months. Even if the
entire files in the Office of the Standing Counsel
were to be sorted out, so much time was not
necessary and it could have been done in less than
a month. This shows the culpable neglect and
laches with which matters are being dealt with by
the deponent at the office of the Standing Counsel.
Such irresponsible conduct in the matter of conduct
of cases cannot be accepted as a ground to condone
the delay of as much as 103 days, especially when,
rights have accrued to the successful party in the
meanwhile by reason of non filing of appeal by the
aggrieved party within the time prescribed by law
RSA 488/08 4
of limitation. There is no just and sufficient
cause to condone the delay of as much as 103 days
in the circumstances stated above.
In the result, refusing to condone the delay of
as much as 103 days in filing the appeal, I dismiss
this C.M. Application. Consequently, the Regular
Second Appeal also stands dismissed.
9th July, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
tkv