AJAY KAUSHAL Vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the present writ petition filed in the year 2011 seeks to impugn an auction held on 28.07.2004. Heard. Considered.

(2.) THE petitioner appears to have approached the Consumer Forum, Ajmer aggrieved of the non -acceptance of his highest bid in respect of plot in question. But the same was dismissed by the Consumer Forum, Ajmer, vide its order dated 30.07.2007, holding that it had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. The petitioner carried the matter further in appeal to the State Commission which upheld the order of the Consumer Forum. It is relevant to note that in the order dated 09.09.2009, the State Commission has recorded that the petitioner sought liberty to file a civil suit before the competent civil court. Thereupon the State Commissioner observed that the petitioner would be free to approach the competent civil court for adjudication of the matter and for that purpose, the time spent before the District Forum as well as before it be taken into consideration and exempted with reference to Section 14 of the Limitation Act by the competent civil court. In my considered opinion, the petitioner having wrongly approached the consumer forum cannot furnish any conceivable ground for overcoming the doctrine of laches inasmuch as misguided proceedings taken by an aggrieved party before an incompetent forum do not lessen consequence of delay and does not render a stale claim entertainable by courts. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M. Prabhakar & Ors. [ : (2011) 5 SCC 607] has held that if the petitioner runs after a remedy not provided in the statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High Court to condone the delay and it is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy.