IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18119 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 06, 2010. Jagir Kaur .....Petitioner versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.G.S.Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 7.12.2006 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, whereby her claim for allotment of an industrial plot measuring one kanal has been turned down after observing that the petitioner cannot seek advantage of the decision dated 13.4.2004 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hira Tikko versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others (Annexure P-3) as the relief granted vide the said judgment was restricted only to those allottees who were the writ petitioners before the High Court. The petitioner was admittedly not amongst the writ petitioners who had approached this Court in the years 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 and got issued appropriate directions vide judgment dated 30.8.2001 (Parveen C.W.P.No .18119 of 2010 2 Chander Goyal versus U.T. Chandigarh etc.) (Annexure P-2). It may be mentioned here that the petitioner on the other hand, approached this Court in the year 1998 in Civil Writ Petition No.18538 of 1998 (Smt.Jagir Kaur versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others), which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.7.2006 (Annexure P-5) with liberty to her to make representation to the Estate Officer, Chandigarh who was directed to decide the same in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto that the impugned orders dated 16.10.2006/7.12.2006 (Annexure P-6) were passed. The writ petition has now been filed after almost four years without explaining the inordinate delay. Law is well settled that ordinarily a writ of certiorari can be sought within a period of one year from the date of passing of the impugned order. There is not even a whisper by the petitioner as to why the delay has been caused. Suffice it to observe that even a civil suit for declaration would be time barred at this stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. October 06, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE