Judgment · High Court

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. SAPRE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA None present for the appellant. BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE SAPRE,J.) This is an intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P. No.5212/2006 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules against an order dated 7.8.2009 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition.

The appellant was essentially aggrieved by the order passed by Revisionary Authority dt 30.4.96 passed under MMRD Act by which Revisionary Authority upheld the revocation of sanction dated 31.7.93 granted to appellant for quarry lease. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by impugned order on the ground of delay and laches because it was noticed that writ petition was filed on

19.4.2005 against these two orders i.e. order of revocation dt

31.7.93 and dt 30.4.96 passed by Revisionary Authority.

This is what the learned Single judge held: 2

1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 30.4.96 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan, whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 31.7.93 passed by the Assistant Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, revoking the sanction for quarry licence, stands dismissed. 2. Against the order impugned dated 30.4.96, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 19.4.05. It is submitted by the learned counsel that assailing the order dated 30.4.96 (Defect) before this Court, which was dismissed for non removal of defects under a pre emptory order dated 30.9.97 passed by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner's counsel could know about the dismissal of the writ petition only in the month of November, 2001, therefore, the writ petition could not be filed immediately after the dismissal of the earlier petition. 3. Admittedly, no efforts were made by the petitioner for restoration of earlier writ petition, which was dismissed for non prosecution. That apart, there is no explanation whatsoever prevented the petitioner to file the petition immediately after coming to know about the dismissal of the earlier writ petition in the month of November, 2001. 4. It is settled law that a person aggrieved by any illegal action should approach this Court with utmost expedition. The explanation of the delay set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is not plausible and, therefore, not acceptable. The writ petition filed suffers from the vice of inordinate delay and laches, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Having perused of the record of the case, we are of 3 the view, that Single judge was right in his reasoning and the conclusion and hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine.

It is not in dispute that the original impugned order of revocation was passed on 31.7.93 and the same was upheld on 30.4.96 by the Revisionary Authority, whereas the appellant filed the writ petition out of which this intra court appeal arises on 19.4.2005. It was thus rightly dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. A delay of about 9 years in filing a writ petition cannot not be said to be reasonable, rather it is unreasonable and inordinate in all respect. It is a trite law that though there is no limitation prescribed for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution yet the aggrieved must approach the court no sooner the cause of action to file a writ petition accrues to him i.e. he must approach the court within a reasonable time. Indeed, even under the Limitation Act, the Act provides a maximum period of three years limitation to file any case in any court. Here is a case, where, the appellant approached the court after 9 years from the date of accrual of the cause of action which arose first in the year 1993 and later in the year 1996 when revision was dismissed.

In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this appeal that fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. [NISHA GUPTA], J. [ A.M. SAPRE], J. /tarun/