Sadhna Khare vs Director of Education (Higher Education),U.P.Allahabad & Ors.

D.S. Sinha and O.P. Jain, JJ.—Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri Ashok Khare learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Vinay Malviya, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents No. 1 and 2.

As long back as in 1991 vide its order dated 3041991, the Court permitted the petitioner to serve the respondent No. 4 personally within a month and required him to file an affidavit of service within a fortnight thereafter.

The office report dated 3171997 points out that no affidavit of service has been filed by the petitioner even after the lapse of more than six years.

The office report dated 3171997 also points out that the petitioner has not supplied second set of record. On 181997, the Court entertained the prayer of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for passing over the case for that day in order to enable him to supply another set of record. In compliance of the office report dated 171997, mentioned above, there is nothing on record that the petitioner has supplied another set of record.

Thus, the petitioner is clearly guilty of noncompliance of the orders of the Court and has forfeited every claim for discretion of this Court in exercise of its special and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A party who does not bother to comply the order of the Court cannot be deemed to be a fit person in whose favour special and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be exercised. Thus, the Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence to the petitioner.

On the facts and in the circumstances, noticed above, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 3041991 shall stand discharged.