MUSHTAQ AHMAD DHAR Vs. NAZIR AHMAD DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Justice with convenient speed has to be a cherished principle of justice delivery system. Inordinate delay operates harshly so as to create an impression that even if justice is done but appear not to have been done because it neutralizes the impact. Litigants normally expect quick mode of delivery of justice, same is in keeping with the aforesaid principle but when litigants themselves enormously contribute to the delay, it cannot lie in their mouth to say that the justice is delayed. Courts of law are bound to deliver justice in conformity with the law, if me litigant by over reacting or showing over smartness contributes to the delay, such position cannot be attributed to the justice delivery system. System is in place but it is for the parties to adhere to the system and to be vigilant at every stage of the proceedings. If a litigant, because of his own shortfalls, applied the breaks in the smooth progress of the trial, it is for him to correct himself, otherwise delay is at his own peril.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent objected the maintainability of the writ petition by stating that no writ can lie against a private person. It is only when main respondent is the Government, Government agency or State or instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of Article 12, the remedy of writ petition is available. The dispute relates to property which is purely a dispute inter se the parties. In support of this submission relied on the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in OWP No. 1364/2011 captioned Abdul Rehman Dar & Ors. v. Showkat Ali Bhat & Ors. dated 9-11-2011, wherein while relying on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal captioned Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010 AIR(SCW) 6387 (hereinafter referred to as Shalini judgment), Court has concluded as under :-

(3.) Every case has its own facts and features so law has to be applied accordingly. It is no more res integra that in the writ petition main respondent has to be either Government or instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of Article 12. In the repotted judgment distinction has been drawn between Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in the process it has been made clear that the writ petition can be maintained when private parties acting in collusion with State are respondents in the writ petition. It shall be relevant to quote para 64 of the judgment: