JUDGMENT : The right of user of the land of the respondent was acquired by the petitioner in R.S.No.16/2 pt of Kavannur Block in Ernad Taluk under the provisions of the Petroleum And Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Act’). The compensation was awarded to the respondent. However, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the competent authority, the respondent filed application under Section 10 of the Act before the District Court. However, there was delay of 114 days in filing the application. The District Court condoned the delay in filing the application, against which this original petition has been filed. 2. Heard. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of R.5 of the Petroleum And Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963 (for short ‘the Rules'), the application challenging the order of the competent authority shall be filed within 90 days and since there is no provision for condoning the delay as per the above Rules, the District Court had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the application. 4. Admittedly, there is no provision under the Rules to condone the delay in filing the application. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. The Division Bench of this Court in Omanakunjamma vs. The Deputy Collector and Competent Authority (Kerala) [ 2019 (1) KLT 949 ] held that in the absence of a special period provided for condonation of delay, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1963, Section 5 of the Limitation Act should apply to an application filed under rule 5 of the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the decision in Omanakunjamma (supra) was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the matter is presently pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no stay was granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter. In view of the above, the decision in Omanakunjamma (supra) is binding on this Court. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the District Court had the authority to condone the delay in filing the application. Therefore, the argument in this regard advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. However, in this case, Ext.P3 order does not state the reasons for passing the said order. Therefore, Ext.P3 order is not a speaking order. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P3 order and direct the court below to pass order afresh on I.A.No.1470/2018, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. It is ordered accordingly. This original petition (civil) stands disposed of as above.