State Of Kerala vs E.M.Vijayan
2024 Latest Caselaw 26391 Ker

Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs E.M.Vijayan on 3 September, 2024

Author: Anil K.Narendran

Bench: Anil K.Narendran

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
                                     &
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
         Tuesday, the 3rd day of September 2024 / 12th Bhadra, 1946
                  CM.APPL.NO.1/2024 IN WA NO. 1171 OF 2024
     AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 26.03.2024 IN WP(C) 6906/2024 OF THIS COURT
APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN W.P.(C):

  1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, 2ND FLOOR,
     NORTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, STATUTE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

     AND 3 OTHERS.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 5TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):

  1. E.M.VIJAYAN, AGED 88 YEARS, EDAKKATTIL HOUSE, MUNDATHICODE WEST
     P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680623

     AND ANOTHER.


     Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to condone the delay
of 102 days in filing the above Writ Appeal.


     This Application again coming on for orders on 03/09/2024, upon
perusing the application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and
this Court's order dated 16/08/2024 and upon hearing the arguments of
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the applicants, and of ADVS.M/S. J.VISHNU, ANU
BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR & VINAY VIJAY SHANKER FOR R1, the court on the same
day passed the following:
             ANIL K. NARENDRAN & P.G.AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
            -----------------------------------------------------
                      Writ Appeal No.1171 of 2024
           --------------------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2024

                                  ORDER

P.G.Ajithkumar, J.

This is a petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The petitioners seek to condone the delay of 102 days in filing the

appeal.

2. The petitioners would contend that in order to take a

decision as to whether an appeal has to be filed it took some time. On

account of said administrative requirements, the delay had occurred.

The petitioners accordingly seek to condone the delay.

3. The respondent filed counter affidavit. It is contended that

the reason stated by the petitioners is totally insufficient to condone the

delay. As per the impugned judgment, the petitioners were directed to

pay arrears of pension within a period of three months. Only to avoid

the action that would ensue on account of the delay on the part of the

petitioners, they have filed the appeal along with the petition to condone

the delay. Respondent accordingly seeks to dismiss the petition.

4. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the

learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The reason stated for the delay is that the deliberations for

deciding whether an appeal has to be filed or not took some time. True,

the details of the deliberations and at what levels such deliberations

took place have not been stated in the affidavit. However, it cannot be

said that in order to get over a possible contempt proceedings alone,

the petitioners have come up with the belated appeal. In such

circumstances, the delay, period of which being only 102 days, can be

condoned by taking a lenient view.

Therefore, this petition is allowed and the delay is condoned.

List for admission on 11.09.2024.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE PV

03-09-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar