Writ petitions filed after statutory limitation periods are not maintainable; judicial review cannot circumvent legislative timelines.

JUDGMENT

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

"i. Issue a writ of Certiorari, order or direction, by quashing Exhibit P5, by finding it as illegal.

ii. Set aside Exhibit P6 and its subsequent proceedings passed against the petitioners by the respondents, by finding it as illegal.

iii. Declare that, the petitioners can provide and facilitate for the proper fixation and implementation of waste segregation, rain water harvesting, solar energy system installation, etc. as per the provisions of Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019, by providing proper and adequate iron structure on the roof top of the building without covering the sides of the roof top and without using it for any other purposes.

iv. Direct the respondents to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before the finalization of the proceedings.

v. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper by considering the facts and circumstances of the above case.

vi. Dispense with production of English translation of the documents."

[SIC]

2. The impugned order in this case is an order passed under Section 406 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act . Admittedly, it is an appealable order. No appeal is filed within the statutory period. Ext.P5 order is dated 05.08.2023. This writ petition was filed on 17.12.2024, that means, after the period of limitation.

3. This Court has considered this point in detail in Suresh K. v. Minicipal Corporation of Kollam [2026 (1) KHC 406] . The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:

“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 the ground that alternative efficacious remedy is available and that be invoked by the writ petitioner. However, if the writ petitioner choses to approach the High Court after expiry of the maximum limitation period of 60 days prescribed under S.31 of the 2005 Act, the High