p^ ^F^ H!GH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BSLASPUR W.P.raNo. 716 of 2008 Petjtioner Versus Respondents 1, 2. 3. Shri Sharad Chand Malu (Jaln) S/o Shri Bhikham Jain, aged about 51 years, rssidsnt of Gandhi Chowk, Mahasamund, TahsK and Djstrict Mahasamund (CG). The State of Chhattssgarh, through the Secretary, department ofUrban snd Rurai D©v©lopmQni, iviantraiay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Rajpur (CG) The ColSecSor. Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) The Chief Municipal Officer. Nagar Palika Prishad, Mahasamund <CG). WRST PETITOSN UNDER ARTSCLE 22S OF THE CONSTJTUTION OF INDIA SIngSe Bench : Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. AgnihoSri, J. Smt. Renu Kocher, Advocate for the petjtjoner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the respondente. ORALORDER (Passea' on this 5th day of February, 2008) The petStJoner seeks a writ of mandamus commandlng the rsspondente to accept the petitionsr's hlghest bld, submltted by the petitioner In the open auction he!d on 22.2.20CK). for auction of open Sand of oSd Kanji House. bearing Khasra No. 1273, area 3784 square feet. situated on the way of Nshru Chowk to Gandhf Chowk, Mahasamund. Learned counsei appsaring for the petitionsr submlts that the auction proceedings were comp!ete but the respondent No.3 did not compSete the auctlon by accepting the petltloner's highest bid for sale ofthe Sand in dispute. The petjtjor.er submite that on account of the internaS dispute amoRgst Councdors of Shs Nagar Pallka, the open auction heid on 22.2.20CK? couid not be given slfsct to and no person was aSSotted the said lancS. The petitioner has filed this petition on 31st January, 2008 after about 8 years of the date of auctton i.e. 22.2.2000. On quer/, as to how such a bslated petjtion can be entertasned, particuSarSy v/hen there is no ssmblance of any right, Searned counsel appearing for the petitioner submite thaS the petitioner 'tVas engaged In making representattons and 'Mitlng appSJcations to the various authorities. !n thjs process the petitioner has spent ajmost 8 years, therefore this petjtEon §s not a beSated one. Whether the petitioner has acqulred any statutor/ or legai right by mere particjpatjng In the auction proceedtngs Is atso not dear. { have heard tearned counsel appearing for the petitioner as Vi?sSS as for the respondents. It is evldent that the respondente cannot be forced to glve fsnal effect to the auction by aSlotting the !anc3 to ths petitjoner. Even othsr^se, the petitjoner has not acquired any statutor/ nght by vlrtue of particspation jn the auction proceedsngs to approach thi's Court for exercise of extra ordlnary jurisdlction envssaged under Artide 226 of the Constitutjon of Sndia, beSatediy after unexplained. jnordlnats detayofSyears. The petitioner has filed this petitton with inordinate and unexpiained deiay of about 8 years. The Hon'bSe Supreme Court In P. S. Sadasivsswsmy Vs. State of Tamll Nadu (A.S.R. 1974 SC 2271). has hs!d as undsr: "!t is not that there is any period of Simitation for the Courts to exsrctse their powers under Article 226, nor is it that there can never be a case v»'hereths Courte cannot Interfere in a ^. '^^'~^ v%-&^" matter after the passage of a certaln Sength of time. But jt wouSd be a sound and wise exercsse of discretion for the Courts to rsfuse to exercise their exSraordjnary powsrs under ArticSe 226 In the case of persons who do not approach it expeditjousiy for reiief and v/ho stand by and aliow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward staie cSatms and try to unssttle settied matters." The Hon'bie Supreme Coust in Stats of W.P. v. NandSa! Jajsvv'al {(1986) 4 SCC 566), whSch was relied on In Karnataka Power Corpn. LSd. Shrough tts Chairman & Managing Dsrector & another V. K. Thangappan and another {(2006) 4 SCC 322}, heid that it is weSS settled that High Court in exercise of Its djscretion does not ordinariiy asslst the tardy and the jndoient or the acquSescent and the letharglc as the bsiated approach may have the effect of inflicting not oniy hardshjp as inconvenience but aiso snjustice on third parties. jn view of the dlcta iaid 'down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ssveral decisions and applying the settied positSon of iaw to the facts of the case, wherejn the petlSioner has approached thts Court after a period of 8 years, v/ithoutany justified reason. this petltjon deserves to be and Is dismjssed, summarily. No order asto costs. Thakur Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge