IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1931 OF 2009 (MS) D.A.V. College & Management Society U.P. Kanpur. ………….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and another. ……….Respondents. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma & Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocates for petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondents. 18th November, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma & Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocates for petitioner and Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to execute/issue lease deed of land area 10 acre over which D.A.V. Higher Secondary School, Prem Nagar, Dehradun is situated in favour of petitioner. II. Issue suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. III. Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners.” 2 The petitioner admittedly is a Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is running an educational institution in the State of Uttarakhand. Primarily, what the petitioner has prayed is the implementation of communications dated 27.11.1961 and 7.2.1974, whereby certain land was to be given to the petitioner on lease. This is now 2009. No reasonable explanation has been given by the petitioner in the writ petition explaining the delay in approaching this Court, except that he had been continuously approaching the authorities concerned for implementation of the said communications and for granting the lease in favour of the petitioner. He has also annexed the letter dated 11th August, 2008 issued by the District Relief and Rehabilitation Officer / District Magistrate, Dehradun, whereby certain information has been sought from the D.A.V. Degree College / petitioner. This will, however, not give any benefit to the petitioner inasmuch as this does not absolve the inordinate delay which has already been caused and there is no reasonable explanation about the delay of more than 40 years in filing this writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches and is hereby dismissed as such. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 18.11.2009 Rathour