Allahabad High Court
Inder @ Indrasen vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Devi ... on 19 October, 2022
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 20 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7374 of 2022 Petitioner :- Inder @ Indrasen Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anjani Nath Khare,Himanshu Kumar Bachhil Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.
Under challenge is the order dated 13.03.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District - Gonda and the order dated 15.04.2014 passed in appeal by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, copy of which has been brought on record Annexure Nos. 2 and 1, respectively.
Specific query has been put to the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding how the petitioner has explained the latches. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Paragraph 4. For the sake of convenience, Paragraph 4 is being reproduced hereinafter;-
"4. That the petitioner is filing this writ petition against the impugned order dated 13.03.2014 and 15.04.2014 passed by the opposite party no.2 and 1. Sri Ram Janak was the eldest brother of the petitioner and only he was looking after and handling the court cases related to the property. Petitioner or any other family member had no knowledge of court cases. Unfortunately, he died on 24.02.2021 thereafter petitioner met with the counsel at Gonda and got knowledge about the cases which were look after by the brother of the petitioner. The counsel of the petitioner gave information about the cases under section 161 and 122B of UPZA and LR Act. He also said that the case under section 161 of the UPZA and LR Act was dismissed on 13.03.2014 and its appeal also dismissed on 15.04.2014 but he did not advise the petitioner to prefer a writ petition against the impugned orders. When the petitioner met with his counsel at Lucknow for filing a writ petition with regard to the case under section 122B of the UPZA and LR Act and shown all the documents to him then he advised to prefer a writ petition against the impugned orders before this Hon'ble Court and as such the delay in filing of the present writ petition is neither deliberate nor intentional but due to not advised by the counsel at Gonda and the petitioner humbly pray to condone the delay in filing of the present writ petition and kindly heard and decide the present writ petition on merits. A Photostat copy of the death certificate of the brother of the petitioner Late Ram Janak is being annexed herewith as Annexure no.3 to this writ petition."
Having considered the aforesaid noticing the delay in filing the petition is about eight years. It is no doubt true that there is no limitation provided for filing the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. However, the concept of explanation of latches has now gained acceptance as an important aspect which may permit the Court to not accept or entertain the petition where the latches has not been adequately explained. The Apex Court in the case of Printers Mysore Ltd. versus M.A. Rasheed and others (2004) 4 SCC 460 and Northern India Glass Industries versus Jaswant Singh and others AIR 2003 SC 234 has considered the issue of latches and applying the aforesaid to the facts of the instant case and noticing the explanation which has been recorded hereinabove.
This Court is not satisfied as there is no cogent explanation for the delay. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed solely on the ground of being barred by latches.
Order Date :- 19.10.2022 KR