STATE OF KERALA Vs. N GOPALAKRISHNA KARNAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the judgments under review, we noticed that the writ appeals were filed with a delay of more tha0n 400 days. We found that no valid grounds were urged for condonation of delay and no satisfactory reasons were stated to condone the long delay of more than one year. Incidentally, we noted that some of the identical writ petitions were dismissed by the court and as far as the question of law is concerned, the matter was already decided by the Division Bench and appeals filed in the Supreme Court were dismissed. One of the appeals is Civil Appeal No. 2018 of 2000. The order is quoted below:

(2.) Therefore, civil appeals filed from the earlier decisions were upheld. We also noticed that the amounts due to those petitioners were already paid. Even though the legal issue involved is already settled, we have dismissed the writ appeal only because of the long delay in filing the same. There is no apparent error in the judgment. There are no generally accepted grounds for filing the review petition in the matter. It is admitted that delay of more than 400 days occurred in filing the writ appeals and we have considered the delay condonation petitions and no valid satisfactory reasons are given for condoning the delay of more than 400 days. The judgment was pronounced in open court. Only one question of law was involved which was decided against the Government by the earlier decisions which were upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In any event, preparation of appeals is of no difficult task and, therefore, delay of over 400 days in preparing the appeal is not justifiable.

(3.) The only reason argued before us was that W.A. No. 1132 of 2007 and connected case were allowed on 18-6-2007 by another Division Bench and the judgment of the above Division Bench was shown to us. It is seen that the above writ appeals were allowed setting aside the judgment of the learned single Judge only because petitioners in those cases approached the Government very late claiming the relief and not on the legal point argued by the Government.