ORDER : (Sunita Agarwal, CJ.) : 1. There is no objection to the delay in filing the appeal. The delay has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Office is directed to allot regular number to the appeal. 2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 3. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition wherein, following reliefs have been prayed for: “A) YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to admit and allow this petition and be further pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the Id. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. AA/46/97 as well as Order dated 10.09.1997 passed by the Charity Commissioner in Application No. 36/72/96. (B) During the pendency and till final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to stay the operation of order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the Id. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. AA/46/97 as well as Order dated 10.09.1997 passed by the Charity Commissioner in Application No. 36/72/96. (C) YOUR LORDHSIP be pleased to grant any other further remedy that may deem fit in the eyes of justice, equity and good conscience." 4. By way of the draft amendments, the original petitioner namely the appellant herein had also sought for addition of certain reliefs, which may be noted hereinunder; “9A(1) YOUR LORDSHIPS may Se pleased to pass appropriate writ, order and/or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.03.2007 passed by Respondent no. 3 in Application No. 36/Parchuran/1/2007 (Annexure F), in the interest of justice; 9B(1) Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay operation, execution and implementation of impugned order dated 30.03.2007 passed by Respondent no. 3 in Application No. 36/Parchuran/1/2007 (Annexure F), and further be pleased to direct the parties to maintain status-quo with respect to the property in question, in the interest of justice;" 5. 3 in Application No. 36/Parchuran/1/2007 (Annexure F), and further be pleased to direct the parties to maintain status-quo with respect to the property in question, in the interest of justice;" 5. It is an admitted fact of the matter that the original petitioner was only a bidder, who had submitted the bid, in a public advertisement dated 19.12.1996, which was issued from the Office of the Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad on an application moved by the Respondent No.4 – Trust under Section 36 of the Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950. 6. It is noted by the learned Single Judge that an undisputed fact is that the bid in favour of the Respondent No.5 was accepted by the Charity Commissioner vide Order dated 10.09.1997, while rejecting the objections of other parties, granting six months’ time to complete the sale. 7. The petitioner herein, who was the prospective bidder did not file any objection nor had challenged the Order dated 10.09.1997 passed by the Charity Commissioner in accepting bid in favour of the Respondent No.5. 8. It seems that some other bidders had challenged the order dated 10.09.1997 by filing the Appeal No.46 of 1997 under Section 36 of the Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950 wherein an interim order was passed in favour of the Respondent No.2, which came to be vacated by the Order dated 23.03.2000. The order of vacation of interim order dated 23.03.2000 had attained finality as it was not challenged further. Finally, the appeal had been rejected vide Order dated 19.12.2017. After vacation of the interim order, it seems that permission was granted by the Order dated 30.03.2007 for completing the sale by extending the time limit for the further period of six months, which was originally granted in the Order dated 10.09.1997. 9. Be that as it may, the order of dismissal of appeal filed by other bidders dated 19.12.2017 was challenged in the Special Civil Application No. 3944 of 2018 wherein, initially an order of status quo was passed on 21.08.2018, which was further challenged in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1259 of 2018. During the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal, the Respondent No.2, the writ petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3944 of 2018 had prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition, which was granted by the Division Bench of this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal. During the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal, the Respondent No.2, the writ petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3944 of 2018 had prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition, which was granted by the Division Bench of this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal. In any case, with the withdrawal of the writ petition filed by the Respondent No.2, the challenge to the order of Charity Commissioner dated 10.09.1997 by another set of bidder had been brought to its logical end. 10. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner herein, who was only a prospective bidder and who has never challenged the Order dated 10.09.1997 passed by the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950, filed a writ petition, straightway challenging the order dated 10.09.1997 passed by the Charity Commissioner and the order of rejection of appeal by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 19.12.2017, which was filed by other set of bidders. 11. In this scenario, the learned Single Judge has rightly noted that the original petitioner chose not to avail the statutory remedy by preferring independent appeal as provided under Section 36 (3) of the Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950. 12. It was, thus, noted by the learned Single Judge that the writ petition filed by the petitioner in challenging the Order dated 10.09.1997, after a period of 20 years, suffers from unreasonable delay and latches, inasmuch as, the original petitioner has been negligent in ascertaining his rights by invoking remedy provided under Section 36 (3) of the Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950 within the period of 30 days from the date of passing of the order dated 10.09.1997. 13. We do not find any error in the opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge that the original petitioner is a ‘Fence Sitter’, who was watching the proceedings drawn by another set of bidders from the year 1997 onwards. There was no question of entertaining the challenge to the order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, inasmuch as the appeal was not filed by the original petitioner. However, in the meantime, third party rights have been created in favour of the Respondent No. 14 as back as on 13.14.2017, after granting extension by the Charity Commissioner vide order dated 30.03.2007 for completion of the same. 14. However, in the meantime, third party rights have been created in favour of the Respondent No. 14 as back as on 13.14.2017, after granting extension by the Charity Commissioner vide order dated 30.03.2007 for completion of the same. 14. Taking note of the above, on a query made by the Court as to the locus of the original petitioner to maintain the writ petition challenging the Order dated 10.09.1997 being a prospective bidder, when he has not brought the challenge before the appropriate forum by invoking Section 36 (3) of the Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of the Charity Commissioner, in acceptance of the bid of Respondent No.5, suffered from serious irregularities. Moreover, a time period was provided in the order and the permission to execute the sale deed in favour of the Respondent No.5 was only for a period of six months. The Charity Commissioner has erred in granting extension after the period of 11 years by passing the order dated 30.01.2007. It is submitted that the conditions mentioned in the advertisement dated 19.12.1996, for acceptance of the bid, had not been followed. The Charity Commissioner has committed illegality in accepting the bid of Respondent No.5 by the order dated 10.09.1997. 15. All these aspects of the matter have been conveniently ignored by the Revenue Tribunal in dismissing the Appeal No.46 of 1997 vide Order dated 19.12.2017. It is, thus, submitted that both the order passed by the Charity Commissioner and the Revenue Tribunal cannot be sustained and the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground of delay. 16. The above submissions do not retain us for long for the observation made herein that the original petitioner being the prospective bidder has left with no right, title or interest in the property in question when he chose not to challenge the order of the Charity Commissioner dated 10.09.1997 for acceptance of bid of Respondent No.5. The learned Single Judge has rightly termed the petitioner as a ‘Fence Sitter’, who was watching the proceedings drawn by other bidders. 17. The learned Single Judge has rightly termed the petitioner as a ‘Fence Sitter’, who was watching the proceedings drawn by other bidders. 17. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to maintain the writ petition and this appeal based on the fact that the petitioner was impleaded a proforma respondent in the appeal filed by other bidders, would be of no help, inasmuch as, it was required for the petitioner to bring his own action to challenge the decision of the Charity Commissioner in accepting the bid of Respondent No.5. 18. As this has not been done, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal stands dismissed, accordingly. No order as to costs. 19. Consequently, connected Civil Application for stay stands disposed of.