Deepa Rani M vs The State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 9809 Ker

Kerala High Court

Deepa Rani M vs The State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2025

W.A.1936 of 2019               -: 1 :-

                                                               2025:KER:77153

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                         PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

                                            &

                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

            FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 25TH ASWINA, 1947

                               WA NO. 1936 OF 2019

          AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.02.2008 IN WP(C) NO.6082 OF 2008

OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


APPELLANT/2nd petitioner in WPC:

               DEEPA RANI M.,AGED 42 YEARS
               W/O.LATE ANIL JOY, POIKAYIL, OTHARA, THIRUVALLA,
               PATHANAMTHITTA NOW RESIDING AT ODACHUVATTIL HOUSE, WEST
               OTHARA.P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689551.


               BY ADVS.
               SRI.RAJESH. K.RAJU
               SMT.REMYA MURALI


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 AND Ist petitioner in WPC:

      1        THE STATE OF KERALA,
               REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND
               FAMILY WELFARE (J) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

      2        DIRECTOR OF HOMEOPATHY,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

      3        KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETAY, PATTOM,
               THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM- 695001.

      4        DISTRICT OFFICER,P.S.C. DISTRICT OFFICE, THAYIL BUILDING,
               NEAR T.B.JUNCTION, PATHANAMTHITTA.
 W.A.1936 of 2019            -: 2 :-

                                                          2025:KER:77153


      5      DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HOMEO),
             O/O. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HOMEO),
             PATHANAMTHITTA 689645.

      6      P.JAYACHANDRAN,
             S/O.N.PADNABHA KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, CHAMAKKAL PUTHEN
             MADAM, PARAKODE.P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689645.


             BY ADVS.
             SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH
             SRI.ACHUTH KYLAS
             SRI.JOSELAL GEORGE
             SRI.R.MAHESH MENON
             SRI.DEAGO JOHN K
             SHRI.AMAL DEV C.V.



      THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.10.2025, THE
COURT ON 17.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A.1936 of 2019           -: 3 :-

                                                         2025:KER:77153




                            JUDGMENT

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra-Court Appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High

Court Act 1958 assails the judgment dated 21.02.2008 passed in

W.P.(C) No.6082/2008, wherein the writ petition filed by the

appellant/the second petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single

Judge.

2. Heard C.M. Appln. No.2 of 2019 for condonation of delay. The

appeal has been filed with a delay of 4133 days.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after

passing of the impugned judgment dated 21.02.2008, the appellant

had applied for a certified copy of the judgment on 9.7.2019 and

received the certified copy only on 05.08.2019. The learned counsel

for the appellant also submitted that due to illness and financial

constraints, she could not engage a lawyer to prefer an appeal

against the impugned judgment. Thus, under the aforementioned

2025:KER:77153

reasons, there occurred a delay of 4133 days in preferring this

appeal.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the delay aspect has

rendered several judgments which are reproduced below:

4.1 The learned Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka 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.

4.2 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

2025:KER:77153

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.

4.3 The Supreme Court in the case of Nadia Distt. Primary

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.

4.4 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.

2025:KER:77153

4.5 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 Consti-

tution of India. 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 rea- sonably.

5. In view of the aforesaid legal pronunciation by the Hon'ble

Apex Court, we find no justification to grant any indulgence to

the appellant 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 appellant for

such delay. Therefore, the present appeal suffers from a huge

delay of 4133 days in approaching this Court against the

judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the delay

2025:KER:77153

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.

2/2019 seeking condonation of delay is hereby rejected.

Consequently, Writ Appeal also stands dismissed.

Sd/-SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE

Sd/- P.V.BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE

css/

2025:KER:77153

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 13601/J3/2008/ H& FWD DATED 26.11.2008 FROM THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (J) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 3728/EM5/08/DH DATED 11.12.2008 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE THE LETTER NO.

11149/EA5/08/DH/LDS DATED 20.12.2008 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO. 1594/E2/2006/CMOP DATED 13.11.2007 FROM THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE (HOMEO), PATHANAMTHITTA TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.11.2O05 IN STALIN VERSUS STATE OF KERALA, REPORTED IN 2006 (1) KLT 493 ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.7.2006 IN MOHANAN V. DIRECTOR OF HOMEOPATHY REPORTED IN 2006(3) KLT 641(FB) ANNEXURE A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.2.2007 IN W.P.(C) 20111/2006 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT/1ST PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION ALONG WITH ONE MATHEW DAVID AS 2ND PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.08.2007 IN WA 893/2007 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT SHRI. P. JAYACHANDRAN ALONG WITH ONE MATHEW DAVID.

ANNEXURE A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.2007 IN WA 893/2007 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT SHRI. P. JAYACHANDRAN ALONG WITH ONE MATHEW DAVID.

ANNEXURE A10 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.2007 IN R.P. 857/2007 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ONE MATHEW DAVID.

ANNEXURE A11 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 22.5.2000 OF SHRI. ANIL C. JOY ISSUED BY THE NATTAKOM GRAMAPANCHAYATH.

2025:KER:77153

ANNEXURE A12 ORIGINAL OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 15.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE OUSHADHA AYURVEDIC PANCHAKARMA TREATMENT CENTRE, DWARAKA PUHENCHANTHA, VARKALA.