I. Prelude:

This writ petition presents for consideration a pure question of law: Whether the Tribunal for Local Self-Government Institutions, a statutory adjudicatory body, can condone the delay in the presentation of appeal either in terms of Section 5 or Section 14 of the Limitation Act, especially in the face of the limitation imposed in Rule 8 of the Tribunal for the Kerala Local Self-Government Institutions Rules?

II. Facts in Brief:

2. To resolve this issue, bare minimum facts are required. Thus, shorn of extraneous particulars, the factual setting is that the second respondent submitted to the third respondent Grama Panchayat an application for permit or licence to establish a granite quarry. With the rejection of the said application on 14.03.2014, the second respondent initially laid challenge before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 8123 of 2014, which, this Court dismissed through Ext.P2 judgment, dated 28.05.2014; nevertheless by preserving his right to impugn the decision of the Grama Panchayat before statutory appellate authority.

3. On 10.07.2014 the second respondent filed Ext.P1 statutory appeal (Appeal No.798 of 2014) before the first respondent Tribunal. Along with the memorandum of appeal, he has also filed an application to dispense with the requirement of production of the certified copy of the judgment as the same had not been received by then.

4. The petitioners herein, who got impleaded in the statutory appeal before the learned Tribunal as additional respondents 3 to 5 filed Ext.P3 application (I.A. No. 2503 of 2014) for having the issue of maintainability of the appeal considered as a preliminary one. The objection raised is regarding delay. On his part, the second respondent filed Ext.P4 interlocutory application calling in question the maintainability of Ext.P3 application. He has also filed Ext.P5 petition dated 13.11.2014 for the condonation of delay.

5. The learned Tribunal, having taken up Ext.P3 application for consideration, after hearing all the parties concerned, passed Ext.P7 orders holding that the appeal is maintainable, apart from condoning 12 days’ delay. Aggrieved thereby, the additional respondents 3 to 5 therein filed the present writ petition.

6. Given the fact that a profusion of precedents had been cited at the bar by both the learned counsel, this Court, having found some of them seemingly conflicting, requested Mr. George Poonthottam, the learned advocate, to be an amicus curiae. Having readily agreed, the learned amicus curiae has admirably assisted the Court.

III. Submissions:

i) Petitioners’:

7. To begin with, in the above factual back drop, Mr. Georgekutty Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that as per Rule 8 of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), the appeal is to be filed within 30 days from the date of the impugned order; the maximum further period that can be allowed under the Tribunal’s power of condonaiton is 30 more days. According to him, the 3rd respondent Panchayath passed orders on 19.03.2014; as such, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 18.04.2014. The learned counsel has stressed that the Tribunal can condone the delay of 30 days, if there are sufficient reasons. But, no application for the condonation of delay was filed by the 2nd respondent along with Exhibit P1 appeal, according to him.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act is a complete code containing detailed provisions for limitation. In support of the said submission, he has placed reliance on Anandvally v. Ajitha, 2001 (1) KLT 211. According to him, to apply Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the proceedings must be civil proceedings, ought to be between the same parties, seeking the same relief, and that the petitioners ought to have been prosecuting the case in a wrong forum bona fide. In the light of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the s