HIRDAY NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) List of fresh cases revised. No one has appeared for the petitioner. The writ petition is reported to be beyond time by 7 years and 194 days. The writ petition as such suffers from laches and the delay.

(2.) The Court is experiencing that a peculiar practice has developed in this Court that counsel after filing of writ petition which suffers from laches and delay or is otherwise not maintainable or weak, do not turn up to argue the writ petition when it comes as a fresh case before the Court concerned knowing that the fresh case would not be dismissed in absence and, as per practice, would be ordered to be listed in the next cause list It will thus remain pending for a long time whereupon, on some favourable occasion, taking advantage of the pressure of work upon the Court, he would succeed in getting a counter-affidavit called without the matter being actually argued on merits or surpassing the factum of laches in filing the writ petition. Such is the practice in order to either deceive the litigant or to take undue advantage from the Court. Such a practice cannot be approved of and is rather deprecated.

(3.) In view of the above. I have taken up the matter and perused the contents of the writ petition.