K-®:?- !N;. 'V ^f ^ ..?' \. ..^ Petitioner HIStLCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BiLASiyjR WritPetition (UNo.319 of 2008 State of Chhattisaarh. throuah Sub Divisionai Officer, Valamdehi Kantara Sarvekshan, Department ofWater Resourees, Kasdoi Sub Dlvision, Tahsii and District Raipur (C.G.). Versus .CT' . 1) Su&hash Rao, S/o. Budhdhu Rao, throuah Bhaskar Rao, 27 Khoii Vikas Nagar, Near Bidl Patta Godown, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). 2) State tndustrial Court, through its Registrar, Ralpur (CG). (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) SB: Hon'bte Mr. Safish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: S.h" Li. N.S. Deo, Governrner!t Advooate foor the petitioner/State. None for the respondents. (Passed on 16 .january, 2008) The petitioner/State Government, being aggrieved bv the order dated 23-11-2001 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Industriai Court in Apperal N0. 14,'MPIR AcV97, whereby the appeal flied by the petitioner was modified to the extent of orant of backwages from 75% to 25% and other part of the order dated 13-11-1996 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Labour Court, Raipur, was confirmed, has fiied this petition. 2) Lsarned counse! submits that the order passed tw the Labour Court as weil as industria! Court is bad-in-law as ail the faots have not been taken Into consideration. 3) Be that as it mav, the petittoner has taken about six vears in aDoroachina this Court under this petition. The order or the industrial Court myst have been compiied with and the respondent No.1 must have settied his life. It is not expeoted by anv person to wait for about six years to get the benefit of reiief granted by the Courts. The expianation for iaches and deiay of the petitioner is as under: "15 That, the counsei for the petttioner Shri Randheer Singh Gautam had given his opinion on 15-12- 2QQ1 j thst It wss 3 flt C8S9 tu nlS 3 pstltiOH bsfOFS the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgzarh at - 2- iv) iilaspur. That; on 24.Q7.2Q06, the Of"oer-ln-C"arge was appointed by the Department ofWater Resourees. That, on 07.06.2006 a request 'A'as made to Law lj9pCTrtrr)erlt IQ SCCOFQ p9,rrriission to f'ls a pstit'on before the Hon'bie High Court o* Chhattisgarh at siiaspur and that permission was granted on 18.07.2006. .-33 That, t'ne Officer-ln-Charge appointeci by the Lasw Department was busy in Govfernment Ofnoiai wo[1</Water User Association Eieotions and other miscellaneous works, therefore, he could not report to the Office of She Advocate General; Chhatttegarh at Bilaspur for preparation of the Writ Petition. "hereafter, the nevi/iy appointed ExecL'tive Engineer has initiated the proceedings to file this Writ Petition before this Hon'bie Court." 4i On perusal of the reasons given by the petitioner for extraordinar/ laohes and deiay it seems that this Is an eye-wash as the petitioner has not expiained anv iaches and delav for the period before 7-6-2006. 5) It is weli settied that High Court in exereise of its discretion does not ordinariiy assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic as the beiated approach mav have the effeot of infiioting not oniy hardship as inconvenience but also injustice on third parties (See uagdish Narain Maltiar Vs. State of Bihar & ottisrsi, P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadii2. State of M.P. & others Vs. Nandlal •Jaiswai and othsrsa, Burn Standard Co. Ltd. S others Vs. Dinabandhu Majumdar & anather4 and Karnafaka Power Corporation Ltd., through ats Chainrsan & Nansgint Oirectos' & another Vs. K. Thangappan & anothers.) 6) Thus, without examining the case on merit, this petit'ion is dlsmlssed on the ground of delay and iaches. No order as to costs. ~— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge 1. A!R 1973 SC 1343 2. AIS 197480227-1 3. (1986)4SCC586 4. (1995) 4SCC 172 5. (2006) 4 SCC 322 Ra|u