23. wp 8834-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8834 OF 2010 Ratnamala Vishnu Chavan .. Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr. Sanjay S. Kokreja i/b Mr. Prashant Aher for the Petitioner Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 7 Mr. P.G. Lad for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 CORAM : D. D. SINHA & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ DATE : 13th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner in the present Writ Petition has challenged validity of the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 23rd April 1987 as well as the order of eviction passed by respondent MHADA on 22nd April 1987. 3. So far as delay and latches are concerned, the petitioner has submitted that he has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the impugned notice as well as the impugned order of eviction in the year 2010 since the petitioner was unaware about the eviction proceedings initiated by MHADA as well as passing of the order. It is also not in 1 23. wp 8834-10.doc dispute that there was alternate remedy of Appeal which was available to the petitioner to challenge the order of eviction dated 23rd April 1987. However, the said remedy has not been invoked by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the petition, the petitioner has given reasons for delay in approaching this Court in the year 2010. 4. We have perused the paragraphs 3 and 4 of the petition and found that the petitioner has merely stated that he was unaware of the proceedings initiated by MHADA for eviction as well as order dated 22nd April 1987 passed by MHADA. The explanation given by the petitioner for inordinate delay approaching this Court, in our view, is wholly inadequate to condone the delay. The notice was issued way back in the year 1987 and the order of eviction was also passed in the year 1987. It is difficult for us to appreciate as to how on the basis of the averments made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the petition, inordinate delay caused in filing the present petition can be condoned. We are, therefore, of the view that the present petition suffers from delay and latches and therefore, liable to be dismissed on this count. In these circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J ] [ D. D. SINHA, J ] 2 23. wp 8834-10.doc 3