Anil K. Narendran, J. - (1.) This is an application filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board, the appellant in Un-numbered Writ Appeal of 2016 (ZVVA No. 732 of 2016), under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking an order to condone the delay of 1225 days in re-presenting the Writ Appeal filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 02/02/2012 in WP (C) No. 11885 of 2008. The appellant filed the said Writ Petition mainly challenging Ext. P3 order dated 11/01/2007 of the Electricity Ombudsman in Appeal No. 1 of 2006 filed by the respondent herein, a unit engaged in the manufacture and sale of cotton yarn, situated at Kanjikode in Palakkad District, a HT-EHT consumer under the Electricity Board with Consumer No. 9/731. The learned Single Judge by the judgment dated 02/02/2012 dismissed the Writ Petition declining interference on Ext. P3 order of the Electricity Ombudsman. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 02/02/2012 in WP(C) No. 11885 of 2008, the appellant filed the present Writ Appeal on 05/02/2013 with a delay of 335 days.
(2.) On 16/02/2013 the Registry returned the file noting certain defects and the appellant was granted 15 days' time to cure the defects. The endorsement made by the Registry on 16/02/2013 is extracted hereunder; "(1) Court-fee not paid. (2) Not flagged. (3) Copy not served on opposite side. Returned - Time 15 days."
(3.) On 11/07/2016, the appellant re-presented the Writ Appeal after curing the defects, along with CM Application No. 732 of 2016 to condone the delay of 1225 days in re-presenting the appeal. The reason for the inordinate delay of 1225 days in re-presenting Writ Appeal, as stated in the affidavit accompanying CM Application No. 732 of 2016 sworn to by the Assistant Executive Engineer attached to the office of the Standing Counsel for the Board, reads thus; "3. As against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge Writ Appeal was filed with a delay petition and a petition to condone the delay in re-presenting the Appeal. After the filing of the Writ Appeal the respondent made a further attempt to settle the matter and hence no further proceedings were taken. However, the respondent is now claiming the full benefits granted by the Ombudsman in Ext. P3 order. It is on account of these reasons that the Writ Appeal was not moved immediately. It is submitted that there is a delay of 1225 days in re-presenting the Writ Appeal. The delay was caused under the aforesaid circumstances and not due to latches or negligence on the part of the appellant.";