Delay in filing appeals must be adequately explained; otherwise, the appeal may be dismissed based on principles of delay and laches.

JUDGMENT

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present writ appeal, filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, arises from the judgment dated 25.05.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 17151 of 2020, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed, and Exts. P3, P4, and P7 - through which the appellants had demanded Cess from the respondent in connection with the construction of a building - were quashed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is the owner of residential building No.15/138 in Survey No.125/6, 1 of the Guruvayur Village, Chavakkad Taluk, Thrissur District, having an extent of 233.95 square meters of plinth area. The application was submitted for building permit for construction of house which was granted on 02.02.2006. The house was constructed in the year 2008 and Occupancy Certificate was issued on 12.11.2008 by the Guruvayur Municipality. The respondent had challenged the issuance of notices, Exts.P3 and P4 dated 09.03.2020, and order Ext.P7 dated 27.12.2018, whereby a demand was made for payment of Cess by the respondent.

3. The learned Single Judge set aside the three orders and held that the revenue recovery can be done in the same manner as if it is a public revenue due on the land and the nature of the debt will not become a public revenue due on the land for that purpose, limitation of only three years would be applicable and also held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act provides that if there is no Limitation prescribed, the recovery has to be made within three years.

4. The appellants/State have challenged the judgment dated 25.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge by filing the present writ appeal, which was filed with a delay of 982 days. Consequently, C.M. Appln. No. 1 of 2025 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay.

5. The reason assigned for the delay in filing the writ appeal is that the judgment was pronounced on 25.05.2022, and the certified copy was applied for on 27.05.2022. The copy was issued on 31.05.2022. The judgment was forwarded to the Government by the Office of the Advocate General on 08.07.2022. Upon perusal of the judgment, it was felt that the plea taken by the State had not been adequately considered by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, after due consultations with the relevant authorities, the 1st appellant by letter dated 15.12.2023 instructed the office of the Advocate General to file the writ appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

6. The records indicate that the case file was received by the Senior Government Pleader on 15.12.2023. However, due to inadvertence, the file was misplaced during the process, resulting in an unintended delay in the finalization and filing of the appeal. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was caused solely by procedural formalities, administrative exigencies, and the inadvertent misplacement of the file—factors that were beyond the direct control of the appellants. There was no deliberate or willful negligence on the part of the appellants in prosecuting the appeal. In view of the aforementioned reasons, the delay of 982 days in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned.

7. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants/State in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandramani and Others reported in [1996 (3) SCC 132[ wherein it has been held as under:-

"When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the notemaking, file-pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially