A tribunal must adhere to legal principles regarding appeal filings and delay condonations as prescribed by higher court rulings.

JUDGMENT

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

"a. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Exhibit P5 order passed by the first respondent.

b. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the first respondent, Tribunal to take back Exhibit P4 appeal on file and dispose of the same on merits, in accordance with the liberty granted by this Hon’ble Court in Exhibit P2 judgment.

c. Issue such other relief order as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

d. Dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents. "

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P5 order by which the Tribunal for Local Self-Government Institutions (‘the Tribunal’ for short) rejected an appeal filed by the petitioner because there was a delay in filing the appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality and Adv. Shanavas Khan, who is appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case

4. The petitioner challenged the order bearing No.E2-7276/2023 dated 18.06.2025, of the Tribunal, which was passed based on the directions of this Court in WP(C).No.23699 of 2025. This Court dismissed that Writ Petition with the following directions:

“ Accordingly, I dismiss the writ petition, but by reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P2 and P4 orders before the Tribunal. The petitioner may file an appeal along with a stay petition, within four weeks from today. If the appeal and the stay petition are filed within the prescribed time period, the Tribunal shall consider the stay petition, in accordance with law, on its merits within four weeks thereafter. Until such time orders are passed on the stay petition, all further coercive proceedings pursuant to Exts.P2 and P4 orders shall stand deferred.”

5. This Court, in the above judgment, clearly stated that the petitioner can challenge Exts.P2 & P4 orders before the Tribunal. Ext.P4 in that Writ Petition was passed on 18.06.2025 as mentioned above and the Writ Petition No.23669/2025 was filed on 25.06.2025. If that is the case, the petitioner approached this Court within the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. In such circumstances the principle laid down by this Court in Suresh K Vs. Municipal Corporation of Kollam [2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 2245] is applicable. Therefore, the Tribunal has to condone the delay in filing the appeal, in the light of the above dictum laid down in Suresh K’s case (supra). I make it clear that, I am only interfering with the order in the delay condonation petition, and the Tribunal is free to pass appropriate orders in the appeal in accordance with law.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. Ext.P5 order is set aside.

2. The Tribunal for Local Self-Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to reconsider IA.No.2/2025 in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Suresh K’s case (supra) and thereafter decide the appeal in accordance with law.

Sd/-