MAHETTAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case is hopelessly barred by limitation and unreasonable delay and laches. The order dated 06-01-1993 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), the 3rd Respondent herein under Section 170(B) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short "the Code") was assailed stage of the proceedings. He filed the first appeal before the Collector and the second appeal before the Commissioner, Department of Revenue after the prescribed limitation and he is approaching this Court invoking discretionary power vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to exercise in his favour, after a lapse of more than 4 years and 3 months, without offering even a word of explanation for this inordinate delay.

(2.) IT is well known principle that the Court helps diligent and not indolent who sleeps over his right. Though, there is no specific period of limitation, the High Court may refuse to exercise its extraordinary, discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution where the Petitioner is guilty of laches or undue delay, for which there is no satisfactory explanation. Unless the facts and circumstance of the case clearly justify the laches or undue delay, the Petitioner could not be entitled to relief. IT is imperative, if the Petitioner wants to invoke the extraordinary remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution, that he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will be a good ground for refusing to exercise the discretion. IT is essential that persons who are aggrieved by any order of the Government or any executive action or order of any statutory authority should approach the High Court with utmost expedition. The underlying object is that the Courts do not encourage agitation of State claims and exhuming matters which have already been disposed of or where the rights of the third parties have accrued in the meantime, or where there is no reasonable explanation for delay. This principle applies even in case of infringement of fundamental rights. Where there is inordinate delay in filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary powers. The fact that third party's rights were not created is hardly a ground for interference. This principle also applies to orders which are void. Very recently, in State of Rajasthan v. Laxmi : (1996) 6 SCC 445 (453), the Supreme Court pleased to hold that: Though the order may be void, if the party does not approach the court within reasonable time, which is always a question of fact and have the order invalidated or acquiesced or waived, the discretion of the Court has to be exercised in a reasonable manner. When the discretion has been conferred on the Court, the Court may in appropriate case decline to grant the relief, even if it holds that the order was void.

(3.) IN Tilok Chand Moti Chand v. H.B. Munshi : A.I.R. 1970 SC 898 : (1969) 1 SCC 110, Hidayatullah, C.J. was pleased to observe: The question is one of discretion for this Court to follow from case to case. There is no lower limit and there is no upper limit. A case may be brought within Limitation Act by reason of some article but this Court need not necessarily give the total time to the litigant to move this Court under Article 32. Similarly, in a suitable case this Court may entertain such a petition even after a lapse of time. It will all depend on what the breach of the Fundamental Right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose.