The High Court cannot entertain a writ petition against an appealable order if the statutory period for filing an appeal has expired, reaffirming that adherence to statutory limitations is essential in matters of jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"(i) call for the records leading to the passing of Ext.P8 by the 2nd respondent and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction; (ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the dictum laid down by this honorable court in Padmanabhan Vs. State of Kerala ( 2009(1) KLT 295 ) and State of Kerala Vs. Southern Fisheries Corporation ( 2011(1) KLT 956 );

(iii) declare that the erection of tin sheet roofs to protect the building from seepage of water does not amount to unauthorized construction as alleged by respondents 1 to 3; (iv) dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents;

and (v) issue such other writ, order or direction as this honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order which is passed under Section 406 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act . Admittedly, it is an appealable order before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (for short ‘tribunal’).

3. In such circumstances, this Court need not entertain this writ petition in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Suresh K. v. Minicipal Corporation of Kollam [ 2026 (1) KHC 406 ]. Ext.P8 is an order dated 19.08.2024. The petitioner filed this writ petition on 11.09.2024. In such circumstances, in the above judgment, it is observed that this Court can relegate the parties to the tribunal even if there is delay. It would be better to extract the relevant portion of the above said judgment:

“10. It is a settled position that once the period prescribed for limitation for filing an appeal is over and the additional one month for which the Tribunal can condone the delay is also over, the Tribunal cannot entertain an appeal. Admittedly the petitioner has not filed any statutory appeal within the period prescribed or within the period which can be condoned by the tribunal.In such a situation, the question to be decided is whether this Court can entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if there is manifest error in the order.

11. The Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada and Others v. M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited [2020 KHC 6377], observed like this:

“15. We may now revert to the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (supra), which had adopted the view taken by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2015 Guj. 97 and also of the Karnataka High Court in Phoenix Plasts Company vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal - I), Bangalore, 2013 (298) ELT 481 (Kar.). The logic applied in these decisions proceeds on fallacious premise. For, these decisions are premised on the logic that provision such as S.31 of the 1995 Act, cannot curtail the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution. This approach is faulty. It is not a matter of taking away the jurisdiction of the High Court. In a given case, the assessee may approach the High Court before the statutory period of appeal expires to challenge the assessment order by way of writ petition on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction or passed in excess of jurisdiction - by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction including in flagrant disregard of law and rules of procedure or in violation of principles of natural justice, where no procedure is specified. The High Court may accede to such a challenge and can also non - suit the petitioner on