Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 365 (ALL)

HIRDAY NARAYAN v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-02-09

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2012
Pankaj Mithal, J.;- List of fresh cases revised. No one has appeared for the petitioner. The writ petition is reported to be beyond time by 7 years and 194 days. The writ petition as such suffers from laches and the delay. The Court is experiencing that a peculiar practice has developed in this Court that counsel after filing of writ petition which suffers from laches and delay or is otherwise not maintainable or weak, do not turn up to argue the writ petition when it comes as a fresh case before the Court concerned knowing that the fresh case would not be dismissed in absence and, as per practice, would be ordered to be listed in the next cause list. It will thus remain pending for a long time whereupon, on some favourable occasion, taking advantage of the pressure of work upon the Court, he would succeed in getting a counter affidavit called without the matter being actually argued on merits or surpassing the factum of laches in filing the writ petition. Such is the practice in order to either deceive the litigant or to take undue advantage from the court. Such a practice cannot be approved of and is rather deprecated. In view of the above, I have taken up the matter and perused the contents of the writ petition. The petitioner has tried to explain the delay and laches in filing the writ petition in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the writ petition by stating that he is an uneducated poor person; he is in job at Calcutta; he was informed of the order dated 24.4.2004 dismissing the revision by a friend in village in September, 2011 only. The name of the friend or as to how he had come to know about the dismissal of the case has not been explained. There is no explanation why the petitioner has not cared and taken proper steps to find out the progress or status of his revision which was filed by him in the year 1999. In view of the above, the explanation rendered by the petitioner for the delay and laches in filing the writ petition are not found to be satisfactory. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of laches.