STATE OF U P Vs. D J VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling aggrieved by an order disposing of an appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regula tion) Act, 1976 whereunder setting aside an order dated 24-2-82 passed by the Prescribed Authority the matter had been remanded for hearing afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the aforesaid order.

(2.) THE appellate authority had passed the aforesaid order on 16- 10-95. THE petitioner moved an application for supplying the certified copy of the said order on 24-2-96. THE said copy was shown to be ready for delivery on 29-2-96 and was received by the petitioner on 1-3-96. THE present writ petition, however, was presented for reporting before the Stamp Report of the Court on 5-4-96 and returned back to the petitioner on the same day after reporting. THE writ petition was thereafter filed on 8-4-96. In the Registry of this Court. THE Stamp Reporter in his report has pointed out that the petition ought to have been filed on 14-1- 96. THE presentation or the writ petition in the registry of this Court is obviously belated.

(3.) IT should not go unnoticed that the petitioner while approaching the equity court invoking the jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 or the Constitution of India should act with utmost diligence and despatch. The petitioner with all the facilities at its command and the Chief Standing Counsel representing it do not appear to have acted at diligently in approaching this Court. The petitioner, there fore, does not deserve any sympathy and the writ petition is liable to be thrown out on the aforesaid ground, but considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the questions of law involved therein this writ petition is being entertained and the learned Standing Counsel representing the petitioners has been heard.