AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish K. Agnihotri J.
APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3414/1995
The applicant has filed the instant application for restoration of Writ Petition No. 3414/1995, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.04.2006.
The instant application for restoration was filed on 16.09.2008 which is barred by limitation of 853 days.
On perusal of the office report, it is evident that the matter was listed for default before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) on 19.09.2008. Thereafter, the matter was again listed for default before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) on 14.10.2008, 16.10.2008 and 20.08.2010. Thus, it is evident that the applicant has taken almost two years to remove the default.
The applicant has also filed I.A. No. 1, application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. The applicant has also not offered any cogent reasons for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application as even after delay of 853 days, the applicant has taken more than two years for removing the default. Thus, it appears that the applicant himself is not interested in pursuing his petition and after such a belated stage, prays for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed for want of prosecution.
A Division Bench of this Court, in A. Sriniwas Rao and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.1, while deciding a similar issue, observed as under:
Law helps the diligent not indolent person'' is often quoted and reiterated principle to highlight the rationale behind the law of limitation. There is no need for us to add cause law in that regard. Law reports contain abundant instances. Although it is said that a person who approaches Tribunal/Forum after the limitation prescribed by the statute has to explain each day''s delay to the satisfaction of the Court or Tribunal, as the case may be, even practicing liberalism in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any explanation much satisfactory explanation to constitute a ''sufficient cause'' to condone the enormous delay of 4 year 3 months and 3 days.
This Court, in Chain Singh Pendre v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.2, relying on decisions of the Supreme Court, in S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, C. Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining and Anr., R.N. Bose v. Union of India, State of M.P. v. Nandlal, U.P. Jal Nigam and Anr. v. Jashwant Singh and Anr., State of Punjab and Anr. v. Balkaran Singh, Tridip Kumar Dingal and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., Yunus (Baboobhai) A. Hamid Padvekar v. State of Maharashtra, held that no relief can be given to a person who without any reasonable explanation approaches the Court after inordinate delay.
The applicant herein has not offered any satisfactory explanation for such an inordinate delay of 853 days. Further, even after filing of the restoration application on 16.09.2008, the petitioner has taken almost two years in removing the default and listing of the case before this Court.
In view of the foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the application for restoration of the writ petition also stands dismissed.