f 1 cN’ ginggg Sgnw Before the Honble Hi hCourt ofJudicature of Chhattish arh at Bilas ur C.G. w.P.No. 43% 2004 Petitioner .................... Chandrika Prasad Soni aged 50 years Son of late Shri Mathura Prasad Soni, Sub Engineer, Municipal Comoration, Durg.(C.G‘) Versus ‘v i C ommi s si one:- Respondents ...................... 1.The Municipal Corporation, Durg, Through the / Municipal Corporation, Durg. 2i The State Government of Chhattishgarh, through ‘ the Secretary Nagariya Prashashan and Vikash Ministery, D.K‘S., Bhavan, Raipr (CG) 3. The State Government of Madhya Pradesh, through the Karmik Prashashnik Sudhar & Prashikshan ‘ Department. Bhopal (M.P.) 4. Shri Mohan Goswamy, Assistant Engineer vMunicipal Corporation, Durg (C.G.) , at presgm; _ working under Muni ci pal Corporata. on ,Bh1 lai . 5. Rajkumar Paliya, Sub Engineer, 7 p Munici pal Corpora’ti on ,iEurg; . 6. Jadish ChandraDasore: Sub En ine r, . g v// Muaieipal Careeration, org @.§.),presen*t1y. - 77. "‘V‘cm1 working R’ mr'Rahan Lat,Munigi$13Cgr§grggg§xorba. a ‘ u g3. g : 1‘ fluniacigal Corp§ratlém Durg (MG-L 8. Vishwanath Mishra, Sub Engineer, Municipal ”/i Corporation, Durg, Tahsil & Distt. Durg. WritM Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner above named respectfully furnishes the particulars of the writ petition as under :- ‘ 1. Particulars of the petitioner PETITIONER : Chandrika Prasad Soni. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The Municipal Corporation, Durg & Othexs. "‘ Writ_V"""" Petition Under ‘ " ""—""‘”"" Article 226/227‘Of" The "" Constitution "“ ' ” ‘ Oflndia " "‘ SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Aw‘ 0g; J. @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4900 of2004 Present: Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shannila Singhai, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23'a day of March 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner impugls the order dated §.ll._l995 (Annexure P/l) whereby the respondent No. 4 was considered and promoted to the post ‘ of Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Muncipal Corporation, Durg on a revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-75-2800—100- 4000/-.' The respondent No. 4 was considered and a proposal was aecordingly made to the Government. The petitioner impugns the aforesaid order belatedly in the present petition, filed on 21.12.2004 without explaining reasons for laches and delay. The petition deserves to be dismissed on two counts, firstly, the impugned order dated 9. l 1.1995 (Annexure P/l) is not the final order. It is an order subject to final approval of the State Government as it is made clear in the order itselfthat the decision of the State Government would be linal. There is no challenge to any other order Whether the same was approved or not approved. Secondly, the petitioner has not offered any explanation for the laohes and delay. The petitioner has acquiesced or waived offhis rights for about 9 years without any reason. \ \W 2 @ 3. It is well sattled thal the High Conn in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the taxdy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethaxgic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactory explained, the High Court may decline to intexvene and gant relief in exercise ofits writ jurisdiction. (See: State ofMJ’. vs. Nandlal’, UP. Jal Nigam and another vs. Jas'kwan‘r Singh ‘ and anotherz, State ofPunjab and another vsl Balkaran Singhj, Yunus ’ (Baboobhai) A HamidPadvekar v. State ofMaharashtra‘, Tridz‘p Kumar , Dingal and others vs. Staie ofWest Bengal and oiherf, Smt Shashibala ' Gandhrala vs. State ofChhattisgarh & Others‘). '4. Applying well settled principles of law to the facts ofthe case on hand, the petitioner has not on‘ered any explanation at all for condonation of delay and laches. The netitioner has acquiesced or waived oEhis lights for about 9 yeaxs without any reason The petition is also berelt of merit. 5. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself, 7/ /r <7 /// sal— Judge K, wow-l Salis" 1 AIR (1987) sc 251 2 006) 11 scc 464 3 006) 12 scc 709 4 n" (2009) 3 sc 487 5 (2009) i scc «768’ 5 WP (S) No.7222 of 2005