.[1]. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.623 OF 2005 Muhammed Iftikhar Ali ...Petitioner. Versus The Union of India and Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr.V.P.Shastri, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.N.D.Sharma,Advocate for the Respondent. .... CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND F.I.REBELLO AND F.I.REBELLO AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : JUNE 08, 2006. JUNE 08, 2006. JUNE 08, 2006. P.C.: . After an enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed in the year, 1993. Instead of moving the Central Government, the petitioner filed a complaint under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. That came to be dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner after three years, moved the matter in conciliation. It appears that failure report was filed by the conciliation officer by communication dated 1.3.2002 and has rejected the reference under Section 12(5) of the I.D.Act. The petitioner from .[2]. the cause title is now a practising advocate. 2. This Petition is filed in the year 2005. The explanation of the petitioner is that he being an advocate, was appearing on behalf of his nephew in a criminal case filed against his nephew and also on account of sickness in the family, could not approach this Court. The explanatin given does not amount to sufficient cause for explaining the laches as the criminal case was during 2001 and 2003 and the petitioner was actively involved as a lawyer in the matter. The matter surely has not gone on from day to day from 2001 to 2003. Hence, on that ground alone, the Petition is dismissed. [F.I.REBELLO,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]