SUBBARAYA THIMMAPPA NAYAK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the point to be considered is, whether the delay of about 7 years should be condoned in the circumstances stated by the petitioner.

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a poor villager, who had no means to prefer a writ petition in order to agitate his rights, since he is incapable of engaging a private counsel. Therefore, the petitioner's father approached the legal aid cell on 24-9-1979 and the legal aid cell took pretty long time to prepare the case and to file the writ petition. The moment the matter was entrusted to the legal aid cell, legal aid cell took a long time to approach this Court and if delay is not condoned, for no fault of the petitioner, who approached the legal aid cell in 1979 itself, the petitioner would be put to hardship, injury and injustice. In these circumstances, the petitioner wants this Court to condone the delay.

(3.) Poverty, no doubt is a relevant consideration for the purpose of deciding whether delay has to be condoned though it may not be the sole consideration. It is rather unfortunate that the legal aid cell, which is a machinery created and recognised by the Constitution, has its wheels grinding slowly in responding to a situation like this and this is a matter worth looking into by the concerned authority. I must recall what Oliver Goldsmith said, "A heart buried in the dungeon is as precious as the heart seated on the throne". When a citizen's right is at stake, a machinery specially created and recognised by the Constitution to answer the summon of distress, is expected to act in time and with due consideration of the consequences that would result by delay in responding. The court is optimistic that such recurrences would be avoided by the concerned authorities.