STATE OF U P Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been reported by the office to be 180 days beyond the usual period of 90 days of the passing of the impugned order. My learned brother K.N. Singh, J. passed the following order on 28-4-1983:- "This petition has been filed with delay of 180 days. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks time to file supplementary affidavit explaining the delay. List thereafter." In compliance with the said order, a supplementary affidavit of Janardan Prasad has been filed to explain the delay.

(2.) The learned Standing Counsel contended that in view of the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the office report deserves to be quashed and the petition could not be dismissed on the ground of being highly belated. He placed reliance on State of U. P. v. Bahadur Singh (AIR 1983 SC 845) and Smt. Sudama Devi v. The Commissioner (AIR 1983 SC 653).

(3.) In State of U. P. v. Bahadur Singh (supra) two learned Judges of the Supreme Court laid down as follows (at p. 846)." In a proceeding under land ceiling law, the departmental authority has to be apprised, of adverse decision, and further decision has to be taken whether the case is one required to be taken to higher court. Not that the departmental authorities charged with a duty to implement the law should not be vigilant; but one aspect cannot be overlooked that a departmental authority may delay the moving of higher Court for oblique motives and the public interest may suffer if such cause is thrown out merely on the ground of some delay which is also explainable. There are relevant considerations which must enter judicial verdict before rejecting such cause on the ground of delay."