^ —^ Ap_plic9ot COURT OF M,C.C,No.,4lO_of2008 K.M. Khars, S/o. Late Shri C.B. Khare, aged about 62 years, R/o. House A/1, 25 .Bungaiow'Coiony, Behind Gazebo Hotel, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur (CG). Versus ) ! ' ., 1. State . of Ch.hattlsgarh through Secretary, Resources Department, D.K.S. Bay/an, Raipur' 2<-. Enginee'Mn-Chlef, Water Resources Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG). 3. : 'or Madhya ^ Prades.h, through Princlpai Secretary,' Water Resources Department,'yaritralaya, Bhopal, (MP). (Appiicatlon under 9 Rule 4 of Civii Procedure Code for ofwrlt Petltlon N6.3749/2007) SB: Mr. K. Agnihotri, J. Present: 'yr. Vinod Deshmukh, .counseJ forthe appilcant. Ms. Sunita.Jaln, P-ane! Lav/yerfoj-theState. . (Passedon Shls 24tn day of March, 20©8) - By thls appiication the applicant.seeks to tne Writ Petition- to Its orlginal number l.e., W.P. No. 3749 of 2007 whlch Vif'as'dismisssd on 12-7- 2007. .. • • . ' . 2). -Jhe present Is of 484 Even the appiicant appiied the copy of the'order 12-7-2007'passed in Writ No< 3749 of 2007 after expjiy of the limltation, 3) The Writ Petltion No. 3749 of 2007 was taken up for hearing on 12-7- 2007, On the first round the matter'was passed over.and on the second round, none appeared for the cn occasions, therefore, the wrlt ^.\1 c- -•^- petltion was dlsmlssed for want of prosecution. The the MisceIJaneous ClvJI Case Tor restoration of the Writ Petition No. 3749 of 2007. AIong with the applicatlon l.e. M.C.C, an appiication being i.A.NoJ .for condonation of deiay in fiiing the M.C.C. was fiied. The petitioner has not submitted any expianatlon for not fiilng ofthe application for restoration.withln time, exceptthat^this M.C.C. be within stlpuiated period/5 Further, Js no expianation for remaining when the writ and the writ petition was dlsniissed for.want of non prosecution. Thus/there is no explanation for such deiay at a!i In movlng this i,e,< M.C«C.for restoring the main petition. 4) The iaw cn the princlpie of waiver and acquiescence is weil settled. that, Ifthe person over his and is. notvlgilant ofhls rights and acquiesces.with the sltuatJon, he may not be to-the relief as granted to other vigliant persons. 5) On iaches and deiay in the grievances before the Court, the Hon'bie Supreme Court in the matcer of of Pynjab vs. Balkaran Slngh obsen/ed as Under: "22. According to us, the suit is also barred by acquiescence and.estoppsi. No one in a sen/ice can steep over the question of senjority for mors than 12 and then come to court a reliefwhich wi!i upset the seniority •ofa number of. wno " had -been shown as seniors in the respectlve senjority iists. Therefore, on the of.lt<a t'nat v/iii have the effect of aitering a Wveive-year-oid and a nine-year-old seniority Ijst could not have been bythe courts below." 6) . The Supreme Court In the matter of. U?«Jal vs» Jashwant -Singh and another2, observed as ursder: "The questbn of deiay and laches has been by this Court In a series of dedsions and has been considered to be an important factor In exercise 1 (2006) 12 SCC 709 -'(2006) 11SCC 464 -\ -;^\ -3 of the discretionary reiief under Artlcie 226 of the Constitutjon." 7) Hon'bie the Supreme Court in the-matter of Tridip Kyrnar Dlrsgai others Vs. State ofWest Bengai and others where the appellants took 559 days In approachlng the Court, causing unexplain^d and Inordinate delay, obsen/ed as under: We are unable to uphoid the contentlon. It is. no doubt true there can be no walVer of fundamenta! right. But vvhlie exerclsing discretionary jurisdjctlon under Artlcles 32, 226, 227 or 136 of the Constit^tion, this Court takes into account certain factors and one of-such conslderations is delay and laches on the part of the in approachlng a writ court. !t is weii settlec} that power to issue a writ is djscretjonary'. One of the grounds for refusing rellefs 32 or 22Q of the Constitution Is that the petitioner is gulity of deiay and laches." ' 8) in Tridjp Kumar (sypra), the Hon'ble supreme Court a!so observed as under: - "57. If the petltioner to invoke jurisdictlon of a writ court,;he should come to the court at the earllest reasonably possible opportunjty.' inordinate deiay in making tne motion for a^vrit.wiil indeed be a'good ground for refusing to such discretionary jurisdiction. The underiying object of this prindple Is not to encourage of ciaims and exhurne matters which have been disposed of or settied or where the of thlrd in the meantime (vlde of M.P. v. Bhaiiai Bhai, ^oon Mllls Ltd. v. Industrlai Court and Bhoop Slngh v. Union - of india). • This princlple in case of an infrlngement of fy-ndamentai right (vlde Tiiokchand jyiotichand v. H.B. IVIunshi, Durga Prasad v. Chlef Controller of Imports & Exports and Bosev. Union oflndia). 9) ' 'in Tridlp others (sypra) it was further obsen/ed i as unaer: "There is no upper limit and there Is no lower ilmlt as to when a person can approach.a court. The is one of discretion and has to be -decided on the of facts before the court depending on and -' (2009) 1 SCC 768) •"•'AH.' . -Li- varying from case'to case. !t wiii depend upon what the breach of fundamentaJ right and the remedy ciaimed are and when and how the delay arose". 10) in the mattsrof Yunus ( Saboobhai) A Hamid Padvekar v. of' Maharashtra4.the Supreme CQurt observed as und-er: "Deiay or iaches Is one of the factors whlch is to be borne in mlnd by the High Court when. they exerclse their discretionary powers; In an approprlate case the High Court may refuse to invoke Its extraordinary pov/ers jf there is such negjigence or omission on ths part of the applicant to assert hls jight as taken in ;. conjunction wlth the of titne, and •circumstances, causes ,,to the opposite ' party." 11) in the matter of R.N, vs. of indla3' reiied on jn Yunys It observed that no relief can be given^to the petitioner who i without any reasonabie expianation approaches the Court Inordinate. deiay. \ 12) in the matser of State of M.P. vs. Nandlal8 relled on in Yunys (supra), it was observed that th,e High Court in exercise of Its discretion jk does not ordinariiy assist the tardv and the indoient or theacqulescent and the lethargic. i? there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactor^ expiained, the Hjgh Court may declicie to intervene and'grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. !t was aiso obses'ved that Jf writ jurisdlction is exercised after unreasonable deiay, it may have the effect of Inflicting not oniy hardship and inconvenience but aiso injustice on third parties. When writ jurisdjction is invoked, unexpialned coupied with the creation of third party rights in the meantirne Is an important factor whlch aiso weighs with the Hlgh Court In deciding whether or not to such jurisdictlon. 4(JT2009(3)SC487) 5(AIR197QSC470 5(AIR1987SC251) .6- 13) This appiication. h.as been fiied wlthout any explanation or justificatlon for unexpiained and inordinate deiay of 484 days. 14) Applying well setiied prindple of law to the 'facts of the case, the appiication desen/es to be. and is accordingly dismissed.' Consequentiy, i.A.No.1 also stands dismissed. - . f Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge .^'