IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 2681 of 2007()
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Petitioner
2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS(P),
3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
Vs
1. PREMA S. ANAND, W/O MOHANDAS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :19/11/2007
O R D E R
H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.M.Joseph,J.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.2681 of 2007 & C.M.Appln.No.1223 of 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 19th day of November, 2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu,C.J.
The respondents in W.P.(C).No.32113 of 2003 have
questioned the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the learned
Single Judge dated 8.2.2005 in this appeal.
(2) The 1st respondent in the writ petition was the Secretary to
the Forest Department. Respondents 2 and 3 were the Chief Conservator of
Forests and the Divisional Forest Officer. They were all represented by the
learned Government Pleader at the time of hearing of the writ petition and also
while passing the impugned order.
(3) There is a delay of nearly 948 days in filing the appeal.
Therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed to
condone the delay in filing the appeal. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed along
with the application, they have stated as under:
“2. The writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.32113/2003. The
impugned judgment was passed on 8.2.2005. Certified copy of
the decree was obtained on 1.3.2005. After receipt of the copy,
the records were placed before the then special Government
Pleader (Forests), for legal opinion. As per the legal opinion
dt.15.7.2005, it was stated that there was no scope for filing the
appeal. However, the records were brought to the notice of the
department, the Secretary, Forest & Wildlife Department had
by letter dt.5.11.2007, stated that the judgment should be
challenged in appeal. Accordingly, a letter was issued by the
Chief Conservator of Forests on 30.7.2007 directing the
W.A.No.2681 of 2007 – 2 –
Divisional Forest Officer, Timber Sales Division, Palakkad to
take steps to file the appeal. I have come to the Advocate
General’s office on 14.8.2007 for the purpose of taking steps to
file the appeal. By that time, the file had already been sent to
the Records Section. I had requested to search out the file from
the Records Section and the records were retrieved on
7.9.2007. The records were submitted on 5.10.2007 to the
Special Govt. Pleader (Forests) for preparing the appeal. The
memorandum of appeal was prepared on 10.10.2007. The said
memorandum is being filed today”.
(4) Fortunately, they admit the passing of the order by this
Court, receipt of the copy of the judgment and lastly the receipt of the opinion
furnished by the learned Government Pleader. Nearly after two years after
receiving the orders passed by this Court and the opinion of the Government
Pleader, the first respondent in the writ petition, who is none other than the
Secretary to the Forest Department, has desired to file an appeal against the
orders passed by the learned Single Judge. That is how the delay in filing the
appeal is explained by the respondents-appellants.
(5) It is difficult to accept the explanation offered by the
applicants. It is not the case that they were not aware of the orders passed by
this Court. It is also not their case that the certified copy of the judgment was
not delivered to them. Their only case is that the Secretary to the Forest
Department nearly after two years decides to file the appeal against the orders
passed by the learned Single Judge. This cannot be a ground or a reasonable
and satisfactory explanation to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
(6) As we have already noticed, the Secretary to the Forest
W.A.No.2681 of 2007 – 3 –
Department was a party in the writ petition and he was represented by the
learned Government Pleader and the learned Government Pleader has opined
that it is not a fit case to file an appeal against the orders of the learned Single
Judge.
(7) Since the appellants were fully aware of the orders passed
by this Court and they did not choose to file the appeal within a reasonable
time and since the explanation offered by the applicants is fully unsatisfactory,
the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned by us. Therefore, the
application filed for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal requires to be
rejected and it is rejected.
(8) Consequent to the rejection of the application for
condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the appeal also stands rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L.Dattu
Chief Justice
K.M.Joseph
Judge
vku/-