HIGH ¢OURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT NLAEPUR DIVISMN BENCH Coram :- HCNIELE SHRI H.L. $ATTU. CJ & H§N’BLE $HR! V.K. SHRWASTAVA! J. .... PETITIONER Present: Bhim Sen Patei, aged about 44 ygars, Son cf SM Ramdhir: Pafei, Residen? of near Poiice Line Bastar. Dist. Bastar CG. Versus 8'? RE$PONDENTS WRIT PETITICN NO 1466 OF ”2307 Baotar, Distriot Baotar (CG). 4) Dapu’ty lnspector Generai of Fake, Baséar‘ Dismct Basiar. (CG). 5) Superintewent of Poiice, Bastar. D§str§ct Bastar, CG. 6) Assistant Superintendent of Distric’: Eastar : Psiice, Bastaa', CG. Shri Gautam Khetrapai, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the respondentslState. The following oral order of ihe Court was passed by H.L. Dattu, CJ. ORAL GRDER {Passed on 13*“ March 29W} 1) The $tate of Chhattisgarh, ‘ thwugh the $esratary, -“~”/,~ Department of Home, 0K5. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Director. Generai of Poiice, ' Police, Head Quartor, Raipur, CG. 3) mspector Genefal of Poiice‘ In this writ petition flled under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution, petitioner caiis in question the order passed by the respondent authority dated 23-1-1985 By the impugned order, the respondent authority had dismissed‘the petitioner from service. 2) The brief facts are : The petitioner was working as a Police Constabie, which is a disciplined force. After holding a detailed enquiry, the respondent had passed an order dated 23-1-1985 dismissing the petitioner from service. This order was called in question by the petitioner before this Court in writ petition No.2840/2003. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner white tiling the writ petition had suppressed some material facts. lt, however, had granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition, if the petitioner so desires, subject to the petitioner properly explaining the delay in tiling a fresh writ petition. 3) Admitted facts are that the petitioner was a Constable and was dismissed from service on 23-1-1985. For the first time, he approached this Court in the year 2003 by filing a writ petition No.2480l2003. In the said writ petition, petitioner had not stated that he had already tiled an application before the State Administrative Tribunal, inter alia, calling in question the order of dismissal passed by the respondent authorities some time in the year, 1985. it was expected of the petitioner to have stated all'the material particulars pertaining to the case including his approaching the State Administrative Tribunal by tiling an application and the result of the said application in the writ petition filed before this Court. 4) The discretionary relief of this Court cannot be extended to a person who comes to the Couit with unciean hands. This principle is adopted by the High Courts as weii as by the Supreme Court. in the instant case, the petitioner when he med a writ petition before this Court ought to have brought to the notice of this Court about his tiling an application before the State Administrative Tribunal against the order passed by the respondent authority dated 23-1- 1985. 5) Though liberty was granted to the petitioner to tile a fresh writ petition, learned single Judge in his operative order has made it clear that the same is subject to the iimitation. ln the writ proceedings there is no limitation as such, but it is expected of a party to approach this Court seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution within a reasonable time. in the instant case, the order of dismissal is of the year, 1985. The writ petition filed now is in the year 2007. There is an inordinate delay in tiling the writ petition and that delay is not properly explained. ln that view of the matter, we cannot entertain this writ petition and the same requires to be rejected. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. Sd/— V.K. Shrivastava Sd/- Chief Justice ‘- r l l ‘ Judge