The court confirmed the right to appeal and the potential to condone delays under the Kerala Municipality Act, mandating reconsideration of the case based on legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

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

"i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P6 and Exhibit P7 orders passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram and quash the same.

ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioners on merits, after condoning the delay;

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2^nd respondent not to take any coercive steps pursuant to Exhibit P1 order.

iv. Dispense with the filing of translation of the vernacular documents.

v. Any other further relief or order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.

vi. Award the cost of these proceedings."

[SIC]

2. The petitioners earlier filed W.P.(C) No.32340 of

2025 before this Court challenging Ext.P1 order. When the above Writ Petition came up for consideration before this Court on 26.08.2025, this Court passed the following order:

“The learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents. He seeks time to get instructions. The respondents are directed to defer implementation of Exhibit P5 order till the date of next hearing.

Post on 07-10-2025.”

3. Thereafter, the Writ Petition itself was disposed of on 07.10.2025 as per Ext.P3 judgment. It will be better to extract Ext.P3 judgment:

“The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 order passed by the 1^st respondent on 24.07.2025 and received by the 2^nd petitioner on 23.08.2025, directing the 2^nd petitioner to demolish the alleged unauthorised constructions carried out by him.

2. Indisputably, Ext.P5 order is passed under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). An order passed under of the Act is appelable to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (‘Tribunal’ for short) under Section 509 of the Act.

In light of the alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioners and finding that there are no extraordinary circumstances to entertain this writ petition, I dispose of this writ petition, by permitting the petitioners to work out their statutory remedies as enjoined under law. Nonetheless, to grant the petitioners a breathing time to work out their statutory remedies under the law, I direct the respondents not to enforce Ext.P5 order for a period of one month. ”

4. Accordingly, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (for short ‘Tribunal’) with an application to condone the delay of 72 days. The Tribunal dismissed the above application stating that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed in the Rules. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality.

6. Admittedly, the petitioners obtained an interim order in W.P.(C) No.32340 of 2025 on 26.08.2025. That Writ Petition was filed against Ext.P1 order dated 24.07.2025. According to the petitioners, they received that order only on 23.08.2025. This Court as per Ext.P3 judgment allowed the petitioners to file an appeal before the Tribunal.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the delay can be condoned in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Suresh K. v. Municipal Corporation of Kollam [ 2026 (1) KHC 406 ], because the petitioner approached this Court within the statutory period of limitation. There