The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P13(a) order, by which Ext.P13 application filed by the petitioner for condoning 141 days delay in filing an appeal was rejected by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions.

2. Facts of the case are that the petitioners filed an application for a building permit and at that stage they were issued Exts.P3 and P4 notices of demolition. Appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution was disposed of setting aside Exts.P3 and P4 and directing that fresh orders be passed. Petitioner submits that in pursuance to the appellate order, Ext.P5 was issued under Section 406(3) of the Municipalities Act and again the petitioners filed Ext.P6 appeal. The Tribunal set aside Ext.P5 reserving liberty to the respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter. Thereafter Ext.P8 notice was issued by the Municipality, in response to which Ext.P9 objection was filed. However, by Ext.P10 petitioners were ordered to demolish the structure.

3. The petitioners submit that they pursued the matter with the Municipality by filing Ext.P11 representation praying for recalling Ext.P10. As their request was not considered, they approached this court by filing WP(c). No.23287/2008. When that writ petition came up for admission before this court on 8.2008, it was disposed of by Ext.P12 judgment, holding that the remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file appeal as provided under the Municipality Act.

4. Petitioner submits that in pursuance to the said judgment, they filed Ext.P13 appeal dated 18.2008, along with I.A.No.845/2008, an application for condonation of delay of 141 days. The Tribunal considered I.A.No.845/2008 and dismissed the same by Ext.P13(a) order dated 18.2008 on the ground that the power of the Tribunal to condone the delay in terms of Rule of the Tribunal Rules 8 was limited to one month. Seeking to quash Ext.P10 and P13(a) and to direct the respondent to refrain from initiating proceedings against the structure mentioned in Ext.P10, that this writ petition is filed.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that, though under the proviso to Rule 8 of the Tribunal rules, the power conferred on the Tribunal to condone the delay is confined to a period of one month, it is well within the power of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider the explanation offered for the delay and either to the validity of Ext.P10 in the writ petition or direct that the delay in filing appeal be condoned and the appeal be considered on merits. For drawing support to this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ITC v. Union of India(1998(8) SCC 601 and Singh Enterprises V. commissioner of Central Excise( 2008(3)SCC 70 are relied.

6. On the other hand standing counsel for the Municipality submits that once the statutory period of limitation has expired, neither the Tribunal can condone the delay nor can this court, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, direct that the delay be condoned and thus render the provision in the statute otiose. In support of this contention, counsel for the Municipality referred to the judgments in Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise V. Krishna Poduval (2005(4)KLT 947), Krishnan T and another V. State of Kerala and others (2007(1) ILR 233) and also the Apex Court judgment in Hatti Gold Mines Company Ltd. Vs. M/s. Vinay Heavy Equipments (2008(7) SCC 169).

7. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. In the ITC case, the Supreme Court has permitted the appellant therein to file an appeal even beyond the period of limitation prescribed in the statute. However, a reading of the judgment shows that it was taking note of the peculiar facts of the case and clarifying that it was to do justice between