Antony Dominic, J.

The correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No.18838/2008 filed by the appellant, calling in question the order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, dismissing an application for condonation of delay of 180 days, this appeal is filed.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is the owner of a 'Kalyana Mandapam' situated within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent Panchayat. Initially, the property tax in respect of the 'Kalyana Mandapam' was assessed at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per year. From paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, we find that in August, 2005, the Secretary of the Panchayat issued Ext.P1 notice for revision of the property tax, proposing to impose tax at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per annum. Objecting to Ext.P1, the appellant submitted Ext.P2 and on receipt thereof, the Secretary issued notice, affording the appellant an opportunity of personal hearing on 14.10.2005. Accordingly, the appellant was heard by the Secretary and he revised the proposal, deciding to impose tax at the rate of Rs.12,600/-, adopting daily rent at the rate of Rs.4,000/- and also taking that the 'Kalyana Mandapam' could be let out for 100 days per year. The order in this behalf was served on the appellant by registered post on 07.03.2006. On receipt of this order, the appellant filed a petition before the Secretary on 26.10.2006. This petition was treated as an appeal against the order of the Secretary and was placed before the Standing Committee of the Panchayat. The Standing Committee called for a report from the Secretary and passed a resolution dated 29.09.2007, reducing the tax to Rs.10,238/-, adopting Rs.3,250/- as the daily rent. Appropriate deduction towards expenses for electricity, water and other charges was also allowed. This decision was communicated to the appellant by Ext.P3. Challenging Ext.P3, the appellant filed Ext.P4 revision before the Tribunal along with Ext.P5, an application to condone the delay of 180 days in filing the revision. The application for condonation of delay was considered by the Tribunal and the same was dismissed by Ext.P11 order, referring to the proviso to Rule 8 of the Tribunal Rules and holding that the power of the Tribunal to condone delay is limited to one month only. It was challenging this order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed the Writ Petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in 'Thomas Thomas v. Kottayam Municipality' [2008 (3) KLT 964]. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us.

3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Panchayat.

4. In order to resolve the controversy involved in this Writ Petition, it is necessary to refer Rule 8(3) and the proviso thereto of the Tribunal for Kerala Local Self Government Institutions Rules, 1999, which reads thus:

“8(3). Petitions under sub-rules (1) and (2) shall be in Form 'C' and the same shall be submitted before the Tribunal within thirty days from the date of the notice or order or proceedings against which the petition is filed or within ninety days in cases where decision has not been taken within sixty days of filing appeal before the Local Self Government Institutions:

Provided that the Tribunal may admit a petition submitted within one month after the said time limit, if the Tribunal is satisfied that there is sufficient reason for not submitting the petition within the time limit.”

5. A reading of this rule shows that a revision, as in this case, should have been filed within 30 days from the date of the order. The proviso to the rule also empowers the Tribunal to admit a petition submitted within one month after the expiry of the one month period prescribed in Rule 8(3), if the Tribunal is satisfied that there was sufficient reason for not submitting the petition within one month period specified in Rule 8