DAU DAYAL AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner to the following relief:

(2.) THE Petitioner claims to be a proprietor of a tent house situated in Haridwar. According to the Petitioner, in March, 1999 an earthquake had struck in district Chamoli and Rudraprayag for which the District Magistrate, Haridwar directed the Petitioner to provide certain relief materials to the earthquake victims of these districts. The District Magistrate, Haridwar had in fact requisitioned relief materials from various tent houses including the present Petitioner. The District Magistrate had ordered the Petitioner to send 6 trucks of relief materials such as E.P. Tents, Choldaries, Tripals, etc. All these materials ordered to the Petitioner were duly supplied by the Petitioner to the relief area, through the District Magistrate, Haridwar. The grievance of the present Petitioner is that neither the said tent materials were returned to the Petitioner nor any rent was paid for the use of this material as fixed by the District Magistrate, Haridwar. Hence, by means of present writ petition, the Petitioner is claiming a compensation, which according to him is Rs. 7,68,60,000/ - apart from other relief already stated above. The main question before this Court apart from the maintainability of the writ petition is the apparent inordinate delay in filing the present writ petition.

(3.) THERE is no averment in the writ petition whereby this apparent inordinate delay has been explained. There is no whisper in the petition nor any effort made by the Petitioner for condoning this delay. All the same, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has cited certain case law to get over this hurdle. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Chand and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : (1994) 1 SCC 44, wherein in para 16, the Apex Court has stated as follows: