[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Saju T.P vs Kapildev V on 3 December, 2025
W.A.No.351 of 2021 1
2025:KER:93375
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO. 351 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 01.11.2019 IN WP(C) NO.32246 OF
2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/Petitioner Nos.2,3,9 & 13:
1 SAJU T.P.,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. BHASKARAN T.P., SAJU NIVAS, PORARA P.O., MARUTHAYI,
MATTANNUR (VIA.) KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670702 (2ND PETITIONER
IN WRIT PETITION)
2 VIPIN C.,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. C.H. HARIDASAN, CHANTHOTH HOUSE, CHOLA, PATTANNUR P.O.,
TANALUR (VIA), MALAPPURAM P.O., PIN-676307 (3RD PETITIONER
IN THE WRIT PETITION)
3 ABHILASH V.P.,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. HARIDASAN V.P., THAYYALLATHIL HOUSE, POOKKOM, PANOOR
P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670692 (9TH PETITIONER IN
THE WRIT PETITION)
4 VINOD K.G.,
AGED 41 YEARS
KILLIKATTU HOUSE, KORTHUSSERIEL, KALAVOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, PIN-691577 (13TH PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION)
BY ADV SMT.I.S.LAILA
W.A.No.351 of 2021 2
2025:KER:93375
RESPONDENTS/Petitioners 1, 4 to 8,10,11,12 & 14 & Respondents in WPC:
1 KAPILDEV V.,S/O. VELAYUDHAN, VAHZAKKATTE HOUSE, MANASSERY
P.O., MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE-673602
2 SREEJITH M.,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. BHASKARAN M., MALAYIL HOUSE, K PURAM P.O., TANALUR VIA,
MALAPPURAM-676307
3 KUNJU MOHAMMED K.A.,AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. AHAMMEDKUTTY, KAZHAYATHODIYIL HOUSE, KALIYA ROAD P.O.,
CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR-680586
4 BINU A.,
AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. APPU M., MANIMANDIRAM HOUSE, ALUMMOODU,
NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695015
5 SHAMEER Y.,(DELETED)
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. LATE YOONUSKUTTY, SHAMEER MANZIL,
VELICHIKKALA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691573 (*RESPONDENTS
5 AND 8 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE SOLE RISK
AND COST OF THE APPELLANTS AS PER ORDER DATED 21/8/2025 IN
I.A.NO.3/2024 IN W.A.NO.351/2021)
6 DEEP K.,
AGED 42, EARLIER KNOWN AS PEETHAMBARAN), S/O. LATE
KOCHURAMAN M., VELANGATTUKIZHAKKATHIL HOUSE, THATTARAMBALAM,
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690103
7 SURESAN P.,
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. LATE KUTTYMON P., POLATTIL HOUSE,
PANANGATTOOR P.O., TANUR (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676302
8 BIJESH T.K.,(DELETED)
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. KESAVADAS T., "HARSHA", NEAR VHSS,
VALANCHERY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676552(*RESPONDENTS
5 AND 8 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE SOLE RISK
AND COST OF THE APPELLANTS AS PER ORDER DATED 21/8/2025 IN
I.A.NO.3/2024 IN W.A.NO.351/2021)
9 SHIHABUDEEN S.,
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. SAINULABDEEN T.K., SHIBILI MANDIRAM,
CHERIYELA, ALUMMOOD P.O., KUREEPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691577
W.A.No.351 of 2021 3
2025:KER:93375
10 TITUS V.F.,
AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. FRANCIS, VELIYIL VEEDU, POLLETHAI P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688522
11 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
694004
12 KERALA WATER ATUHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN,
VELLAYAMABLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010
13 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
14 GIRIJA K.,
PANDANCODE HOUSE, ANCHUMOORTHI P.O. PALAKKAD-679682
(Respondents 5 & 8 are deleted from the party array at the
sole risk and cost of appellants as per order dated
21.8.2025 in I.A.No.3/2021 in W.A.No.351/2021).
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.BIPIN
SHRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
SRI.N.SUNIL JOSEPH
SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.10.2025 THE COURT
ON 03.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.351 of 2021 4
2025:KER:93375
JUDGMENT
[W.A.No.351 of 2021]
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the
Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the order dated 01.11.2019
passed in W.P.(c) No.32246/2013 whereby the Writ Petition filed
by the appellants herein were dismissed.
2. Heard on I.A. No.3/2021 which is an application for
deletion of 5th and 8th respondents from the array of cause title.
For the reasons stated in the application, the 5 th and 8th
respondents stands deleted. The Registry is directed to delete
the names of respondents 5 and 8 before issuance of the
certified copy of this order.
2025:KER:93375
3. Heard on C.M.Application No.2/2021. This is an
application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
there occurred a delay of 430 days in preferring this appeal as
they were under the impression that the case was pending
before this Court and due to Covid-19 pandemic situation, they
were not able to enquire the same. Later, during the month of
January 2021, the appellants came to know the fact that the
impugned judgment was passed on 01.11.2019. Later, they
applied for a certified copy of the impugned judgment on
27.01.2021 and received the certified copy on 28.01.2021.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the delay
aspect has rendered several judgments which are reproduced
below:
5.1 The learned Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka
2025:KER:93375
Power Corpon. Ltd. Vs. K. Thangappan and another reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 322 has held as under :
6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne
in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate
case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers
if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant
to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time
and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party.
Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still
within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad
v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports . Of course, the discretion
has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.
5.2 The Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Ram Mohan Raja
Vs. State of T.N. and others Reported in (2007) 9 SCC 78 has held
as under :
11. So far as the question of delay is concerned, no hard-
and fast rule can be laid down and it will depend on the facts of
each case. In the present case, the facts stare at the face of it that
on 8-10-1996 an order was passed by the Collector in pursuance
of the order passed by the High Court, rejecting the application
of the writ petitioner for consideration of the grant of mining
lease. The writ petitioner sat tight over the matter and did not
challenge the same up to 2003. This on the face of it appears to
be very serious. A person who can sit tight for such a long time
for no justifiable reason, cannot be given any benefit.
5.3 The Supreme Court in the case of Nadia Distt. Primary
2025:KER:93375
School Council Vs. Sristidhar Biswas and others reported in
(2007) 12 SCC 779 has held as under :
11. In the present case, the panel was prepared in 1980
and the petitioners approached the court in 1989 after the
decision in Dibakar Pal. Such persons should not be given any
benefit by the court when they allowed more than nine years to
elapse. Delay is very significant in matters of granting relief and
courts cannot come to the rescue of the persons who are not
vigilant of their rights. Therefore, the view taken by the High
Court condoning the delay of nine years cannot be
countenanced.
5.4 The Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Lal Vs. State of
Haryana and others reported in (1997) 6 SCC 538 has held as
under :
18. That apart, as this Court has repeatedly held, the delay
disentitles the party to the discretionary relief under Article
226 or Article 32 of the Constitution.
5.5 The Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Dass Vs. Union of
India reported in (2007) 9 SCC 274 has held as under :
6. Normally, in the case of belated approach writ petition
has to be dismissed. Delay or laches is one of the factors to
be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise
their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In an appropriate case the High Court
may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is
2025:KER:93375
such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to
assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of
time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the
opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved
the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as
pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and
Exports. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised
judicially and reasonably.
6. In view of the aforesaid legal pronunciation by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, we find no justification to grant any indulgence to
the appellants against the judgment passed by the learned Single
Judge, as in the application seeking condonation of delay, no
plausible explanation has been put forth by the appellants for
such delay. Therefore, the present appeal suffers from a delay of
430 days in approaching this Court against the judgment passed
by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the delay condonation
petition is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the aforesaid pronunciation of law and the fact
that the delay has not been properly explained,
C.M.Appl.No.2/2021 seeking condonation of delay is hereby
2025:KER:93375
rejected.
As a consequence, the Writ Appeal also dismissed.
Sd/-SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/- SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
css/
2025:KER:93375
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 351 OF 2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 13/06/2014 IN
CATEGORY NO.272 OF 2014
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRA ORDINARY GAZETTE
NOTIFICATION DATED 23/10/2020 FOR THE POST OF
OPERATOR IN CATEGORY NO.211 OF 2020.
