JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent impugned order in Na.Ka.No.2753/2020/H1, dated 31.08.2020 rejecting the licence and to quash the same as devoid of merits and violating Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent to give proper licence/permission to the petitioner for rearing pigs (sus scrofa domestics) in his premises at Door No.173F/5, 11th Road East, Ward No.22, West of Attakulam, East Assessment No.141/022/02013) by considering his representation, dated 14.08.2020. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent impugned order in Na.Ka.No.2753/2020/H1, dated 31.08.2020 rejecting the licence and to quash the same as devoid of merits and violating Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent to give proper licence/permission to the petitioner for rearing pigs (sus scrofa domestics) in his premises at East of Periyakulam Kanmai Channel, Ward No.3, Railway Feeder Road, Kadayanallur, Tenkasi District and till then not to disturb the petitioner's profession of rearing pigs within his premises by considering the representation, dated 25.08.2020. Common Order: 1. These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging two impugned orders, dated 31.08.2020 passed by the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. 2. Heard Mr.A.Haja Mohideen, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Raja Rajan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. There is an appellate remedy available to the petitioners as against the impugned orders under Section 322 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act 1920. Instead of filing the statutory appeal, the petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners are willing to prefer the statutory appeal available to W.P.(MD)Nos.13674 and 13892 of 2020 them under Section 322 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act 1920. However, he seeks for a condonation of delay from this Court to enable the petitioners to prefer the statutory appeal under Section 322 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act 1920. 5. The impugned order was passed on 31.08.2020. It is the contention of the petitioners that they received the impugned orders of the first respondent only in the 1st week of September 2020. 5. The impugned order was passed on 31.08.2020. It is the contention of the petitioners that they received the impugned orders of the first respondent only in the 1st week of September 2020. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that 30 days time prescribed under Section 322 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act 1920 has now expired and hence, this Court will have to condone the delay in filing the statutory appeal. 6. This Court is convinced with the reasons given by the petitioners for not preferring the appeal within the statutory period, as prescribed under Section 322 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act 1920. Section 322 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act 1920 also permits the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the request made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners with regard to the condonation of delay will have to be accepted by this Court, as the reason given by the petitioners for not preferring the appeal within the statutory period is sufficient. 8.Hence, this Court directs the petitioners to prefer the statutory appeals as against the impugned orders before the appropriate appellate authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under Section 322 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act 1920 and on receipt of the appeal, the Appellate Authority shall consider the appeals and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter, without insisting upon any condone delay application from the petitioners. 9. With the aforesaid directions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. However, there is no order as to costs.