JAYANT PATEL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has preferred the petition challenging the order dated 13. 02. 2002 as well as the order dated 17. 10. 2002 passed by the Tribunal, whereby the application to file criminal complaint, is rejected. ( 2 ) HEARD Mr. Raval, learned advocate for Mr. Vyas for the petitioner. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that, after the conclusion of the proceedings before this Court, application was made and it is not a matter where there is no proper explanation for delay and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the matter for permitting prosecution. ( 3 ) HAVING considered the above it appears that the petitioner has lost in the matter before the Tribunal as well as before this Court and even at the time when the tribunal disposed of the matter as well as this Court finalised the matter, no such prayer for prosecution was made and therefore, after conclusion of the proceedings and after a long time, the present application is made. ( 4 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstance; that the petitioner has lost in the proceedings before the Tribunal as well at before this Court, and thereafter the application W.-IE moved before the Tribunal, does not inspire any confidence for the bonafide of the petitioner. ( 5 ) IT is not necessary that in every matter, the Court would entertain such request and as such, it is the discretion of the Court. The Tribunal having found there is unreasonable delay, and has the application. Such an exercise of the direction cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary, which may call for interference of this Court in exercise of the powers under article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, rejected. .