Point of law : Condonation of Delay – Appeal to be file by State – if consideration of the RFA is not permitted on strategically sensitive case involving security, in the ultimate analysis, the public interest is likely to suffer.

ORDER :

Anil K.Narendran, J.

The State of Kerala and the Custodian of Ecologically Fragile Lands have filed this C.M. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking an order to condone the delay of 494 days in filing M.F.A.(Forest)No.150 of 2019, an appeal filed under Section 11 of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Land) Act, 2003, against the order dated 17.03.2018 of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Tribunal, Palakkad, in O.A.No.31 of 2008. The respondents herein filed that original application, under Section 10(1)(a) and (b) of the said Act, to declare that the application schedule property having an extent of 4.01 Hectors, comprised in Sy.Nos.237/A, 230, 192/D, 192/D1 and 231 of Puduppariyaram Village, is not an ecologically fragile land.

2. This C.M.Application is supported by an affidavit sworn to by the 2nd appellant, the Custodian (Ecologically Fragile Lands), dated 23.09.2019. Along with I.A.No.3 of 2019, the appellants have produced Ext.B1 expert report on biodiversity and floristic exploration of the application schedule property in O.A.No.31 of 2008, which is under Olavakkode Range of Palakkad Forest Division. The said report is one submitted by the Post Graduate and Research Department of Botany, Government Victoria College, Palakkad. The 2nd appellant has also sworn to an additional affidavit dated 25.01.2020, in support of this CM Application.

3. In this C.M.Application, the appellants are seeking an order to condone the delay of 494 days in filing the appeal under Section 11 of the Act, against the order dated 17.03.2018 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.31 of 2008. In the affidavit filed in support of the C.M.Application it is stated that, application for certified copy of the order of the Tribunal dated 17.03.2018 was filed on 21.03.2018. Copy was ready on 18.04.2018 and the date notified for receipt of copy was 21.04.2018, which was received on 23.04.2018. Therefore, the appeal ought to have been filed before this Court on or before 16.06.2018. The Divisional Forest Officer, by letter dated 05.12.2018, requested the learned Advocate General to take appropriate action to file appeal against the order of the Tribunal. In the affidavit it is stated that the concerned officials discussed the matter in the 3rd week of July, 2018. Several clarifications were sought in relation to the location and lie of the property and also its boundaries. The draft was finalised during the 1st week of July, 2019. The appeal was finalised on 19.07.2019 and it was ready by 20.07.2019. Thereafter, further time was taken for approval and necessary procedures in the office of the learned Advocate General. In the affidavit it is stated that loss of any portion of the property in question would result in fragmentation of the surrounding forest areas, causing grave degradation to the entire area.

4. In the additional affidavit sworn to in support of this C.M.Application, it is stated that, though a copy of the order dated 17.03.2018 of the Tribunal was delivered on 23.04.2018, due to heavy workload, the District Government Pleader (Forest) could not peruse the files immediately. Later, on discussions with the officers concerned and on perusal of the files, the District Government Pleader found that there is scope for appeal and he forwarded the files along with the legal opinion to the Divisional Forest Officer, Palakkad, as per letter dated 20.09.2018. Thereafter, on discussion with the officers concerned and on perusal of records, the Divisional Forest Officer, as per letter dated 05.12.2018, requested the office of the learned Advocate General to file appeal and the files were received in the office of the learned Advocate General on 26.12.2018. On 01.01.2019, the files were submitted before the Special Government Pleader (Forest) for examining the scope of appeal. Thereafter, the Special Government Pleader made certain queries regarding the lie and nature o