f. .--K ^ HIGHCOURTOFJUDICATURECMHATTISGARH:BILASPUR DIVISIOINBENCH CORAM : HON'BLE SHRIS.R. NAYAK, CJ & HON'BLESHRISATISMK.AGNIHOTRI,J. PETITIONER RES>PQNDENTS; W.P.Nal859 of2001 PramodKumar Tiwari /Aged39years,S/o.Ramkumar Thyari.R/o Maro Tah. Nawagarh, Distt.Durg(C.G.) VERSUS 1. StateofChhattisgarh jl'hroug^ ^Beretary^Hpme Raipur 2. SuiWnBjtinyentofPolJCeDurg 3. DeRu^^lns||ectoF Gerieral of Police, :• ;t.. ^ :\;Raj|?ui|ggs®:;:^& :,:,i:. ..^^., :1 .:4.;^.';.gln|||^^||<^nerat-ofPolice:;: ; ^^l';\';'::^BHi^||il>ttgDmg1^',•;''••::1;''^ !: ^isl-^Sil'ilR^lgaB'eileoufisetforthepetffioner, |§lw|@!tl i^MgiJ|gri'na,learnecl.Dy, G. A. for the State. SORftl.ORDER lPasse(iOn151nSeptember,2006) The following oral order of the Court was passed by S.R.NAYAK,CJ. This writ petition is directed against the order of the State Adftinistrative Tribunal (forshort the Tribunal'), Jabalpur dated 24-05-1990 passed in Original Application No. 1079 of iQQO, marked as Annexure P/1. When this Court pointed out the inordinate delay in preferring the writpetition on 27-03-2003 to learned counsel for the petitioner, he sought time to fileafRdavit gMng reasons for approaching this Courtwith delay. T<^ay, leamedcounsel fbr ttie petitioner would submit that he has atready filed the affjdavit in the Registry. iHe also macte available tous a copyoffte affidavitfiled by him in ttiiscase. We place the same on record and that shall fonn partof the recond. The —2-- R«^ affidavit submitted by the petitioner for explaining the delay of more than 11 years reads as fotlows: "I, Pramod Kumar Thirari, aged about 41 years, S/o Ramkuraar Tivrari, R/o Maro Tah. Nawagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) do hereby state on oath as follows:- 1) That I ampetitioner inthe instantpetition. Thatthe Hon'bIeGourt directetfto file afRdavit ih respect of the facts stated for condonation ofdelay in filing the instant peUtion. 2) That after passing of ttie order by administrath/e tribunal Jabalpur dye to the joint family tiability and poverty 1 was mentally disturbe. 3} That despite the order passed by Administrative Tribunal 1 made several representation to the state andtheauttiorityurinecessarily. 4) That 1 made several unnecessary effored and spent my 11 years fruitlessly. That there are reasonable grounds for condonation ofdelay in filing the petition". (2). The explanation offered for the delay in the affidavit, in the first place, is as vague as itcoyld be. SecQndly.thisexplanatibn could never constitute any cause much l^s 'suffiGient cause' to condone the enormous delayof 11 yeare and more. The writ (»titionis, therefore, dismissedsolelyonthegroundcrfdelayand laches. No costs. Sd/- Sd/- • ChiefJustice Satish Judge w^