THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.No.23505 OF 2011 AND W.P.No.24700 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: W.P.No.23505 OF 2011 The proceedings of the first respondent dated 30.04.2005 confirming the orders of the second respondent dated 18.05.1999, is under challenge in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner herein, along with others, preferred an appeal under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, (for short, ‘the Act’), aggrieved by the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District dated 18.05.1999, granting Occupancy Rights Certificate of an extent of 1/4th share i.e., Ac.46-35 guntas, out of total extent of Ac.187-19 guntas, in Survey No.230 of Srinagar Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of respondents 3 to 6. The first respondent, in the said order dated 30.04.2005, rejected their contention that the second respondent had failed to give them an opportunity of being heard as also their objection regarding protected tenancy rights of the Occupancy Rights Certificate holders, on the ground that such issues cannot be raised in proceedings under the Act. The first respondent held that the occupants, who were in possession of the land as on the date of vesting i.e., 01.11.1973, were entitled for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate; and the appellants were not in possession of the said lands even as on the date of issuance of the Occupancy Rights Certificates. It is necessary to note that the order of the first respondent dated 30.04.2005 is a common order passed in Case Nos.F1/1389/2002 and F1/1390/2002. The justification, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, for the delay in filing the present Writ Petition is that W.P.No.1761 of 2007 was filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 17.06.2006 in Case No.F1/2569/2002. It is not known as to what those proceedings are. Even a copy of the said order dated 17.06.2006 has not been filed along with this Writ Petition. All that is said, in the writ affidavit, is that the petitioner was under the impression that the present impugned orders will also be decided in that Writ Petition and, after the advice of his counsel that it was not so, he has filed the present Writ Petition. The order of the second respondent dated 18.05.1999 was passed more than twelve years ago. The order of the first respondent dated 30.04.2005, confirming the said order of the second respondent dated 18.05.1999, was also passed more than six years ago. The orders impugned in this Writ Petition could not have been examined in W.P.No.1761 of 2007, wherein the proceedings of the first respondent in Case No.F1/2569/2002 dated 17.06.2006 was under challenge, merely because they relate to the same land. Even from the date of filing of W.P.No.1761 of 2007, more than four years have elapsed. Except to state that the petitioner had family and economic problems, there is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the present Writ Petition. The power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court, in the exercise of its discretion, does not ordinarily assist the tardy, the indolent, the acquiescent, or the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition, and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. (State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal : AIR 1987 SC 251). The inordinate delay in filing the Writ Petition disentitles the petitioner from availing the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the sole ground of unexplained inordinate delay and laches the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. W.P.No.24700 OF 2011: Since W.P.No.23505 of 2011 filed against the common order of the first respondent dated 30.04.2005, is dismissed on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay and laches, and for the reasons recorded in the said order, this Writ Petition is also dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J August 23, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.No.23505 OF 2011 AND W.P.No.24700 OF 2011 August 23, 2011 MD