Delay in filing appeal was not condoned due to inadequate justification, reinforcing the principle that unreasonable delay defeats equity.

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

Heard.

2. The present Writ Appeal is barred by 480 days.

3. The present Writ Appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 15.11.2023 passed in WP(C) No.37815/2023 filed by the 1st respondent. The learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition directing the 3^rd respondent - Superintending Engineer to take up Ext.P2 representation filed by the 1st respondent and dispose it of after affording an opportunity of being heard as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one month, from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. It is further directed that if amounts are found due to the 1^st respondent, the same shall be disbursed to him within a period of three months thereafter, failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date on which it became due until it is paid. The application for condonation of delay has been filed only on the ground that there are administrative/procedural delays in taking decision to file the appeal and as such, there was a delay of 480 days in filing the appeal. The reason shown is genuine and is bonafide on the part of the appellants and therefore, delay needs to be condoned. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that the delay may not be condoned for the simple reason that when order of the learned Single Judge was not complied, the appellants herein had filed an application seeking extension of time stipulated in the judgment dated 15.11.2023 for a period of six months to enable the appellants to comply with the directions of this Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the interlocutory application seeking extension vide order dated 22.01.2025. Thereafter, when the order was not complied, the 1^st respondent had no option but to file contempt case No.769/2024. The Contempt Petition was closed on the statement made by the appellants that time has already been extended and is to expire on 31.01.2025 and a specific statement was made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the amounts will be released on or before 29.01.2025. Recording these submissions, the Contempt Case was closed, with liberty to the 1^st respondent to seek a re-hearing if the directions are not complied after the afore time frame expires. Again, when the appellants did not comply with the order, I.A No. 1/2025 was filed in Contempt case No.769/2024 in WP(C) No.37840/2023 for re-opening the Contempt Case. However, the appellants herein assured the Court that they would comply with the order/directions of this Court by the next posting date which was recorded, therefore, hearing on the application for re-opening of Contempt Case was deferred to 03.04.2025. In the meanwhile, the Government of Kerala issued an order dated 13.06.2025 directing the Managing Director of the Kerala Water Authority to implement the order. Again on 20.06.2025, in Contempt Case(C) No. 770/24, this Court directed to pay the amount as per the directions of the Government. Instead of complying with the directions, the present Writ Appeal has been filed with a delay of 480 days for which there is no plausible explanation given, but the appellants have tried to play hide and seek with the orders passed by this Court. Therefore, there is no reason to condone the delay. Accordingly the application deserves to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of their contentions, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble 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, p