STATE OF U P Vs. CIVIL JUDGE MUZAFFARNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed after 169 days, beyond 90 days. The Petitioner has tried to explain the delay in paragraph 17 of the writ petition. All that has been said in that paragraph is that the record from the Court of the Civil Judge was received in the office of Naib Tahsildar (Ceiling) Muzaffarnagar on 6-5-1980 along with a copy of the judgment of the learned Civil Judge dated 12-11-1979. The file was immediately sent to the District Government Counsel (Civil) for his opinion on the same date. The opinion of the District Government Counsel (Civil) was received on 9-6-1980. After receiving the opinion of the District Government Counsel (Civil) the matter was referred to the Law Department for its sanction on 18-6-1980. The sanction was obtained from the Law Department on 15-7-1980 which received in the office of the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar on 18-7-1980. The official was immediately sent to the office of the Chief Standing Counsel on 22-7-1980.

(2.) A bare perusal of the averments made in paragraph 17 indicates that this paragraph deals how the file moved from one place to another. But this is hardly an explanation for the unusual delay of 169 days.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, has contended that a lenient view of the matter should be taken in respect of the writ petition filed on behalf of the State and in support of his contention he referred to a large number of cases. To start with learned Counsel has cited General Manager U.P. Government Roadways v. State Transport Apellate Tribunal U.P., 1971 AIR(All) 263. A single Judge of this Court dealing with a preliminary objection to the Writ petition being barred by limitation has observed: