IN C : ON’B SHR .R. AK, .. W ETlO N0. 22 OF 2006 E TENQ§ER Me aed abou 6 ahttar Patei, g t 5 years so Shri Nirana atl ccuati agriculti residet of Kapdih, a asna, istt. ahasmu (C.. Earlir istt. Raipu (.G. si-rana e. r Vefsus .RESfOQENTS: Stte of Chhisgah Tugh- wmlg a attr, hro Sret ert o Reveue, Dau Kal ngh Ba'wn, Mnay Rpur (G atral ai C..) Cllector, trict Mhasmun (.. > o Dis aad C.G)‘ Su Disiol Officr evee am (.. khlra. ad'u rs, so o hri Saru. ct na, resid illage ls il ent of v Paapali, Tahs Bilgah, D ipu CG) air istt. Rar (.. _ " Dhi agd bo 65 yers ukram, e aut a, on of Sri amaru. cast nyar, siden ia lp, Ts Bilairh, Distt. Rai (. Pen rest : r . a leaneoune r th petr. Shi wan Sig earne . fr t rpndent A R) P n 2 Ai, 200) his case is opelessly arre by iitaion an unreasonable. delay T h bd lmt d nd laches. The order dated 06- fficer (Revenue), the 3rd C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “t 014993 passed by the Sub Divisional I respondent herein under section 1?0(B) of the he Code") was assailed QQURIOF ‘JUDICATURE CHHATIj SGLE BENH HLE I S NAY CJ RIT PTlN 01 WW n of jn Pe, opon — urst, n viHage ui Th. B D Mand G) (e D r C). nceNijn id r ecary, Dpament f n yan Si ha b ivna e (Rnu) Mahasund CG) sum geabot 60 yea n f S am ase Kawr s h S e Kav ret of vllge Pasaali ahil ga pur CG.). Shi A.N Bhakt, rdcsl fo e tiione r Yast nh, ld G.A o he esos. (ORL ooER (assed o 7th prl 6 a O rgp before the Coilactor, Mahasammd, the 2nd resporxdem herain :m 07-96- 1993, after expiry of the iimitaticm of 45 days pre$cribed by the statute. Therefere, the QaHector di$missed the appeal? by his arder dated 284% 1998. ’ The secend appea! was) prefen’ed to the Cammissiener, Department of Revenue after a iapse of 218 claw, whereas he ought ta have fiied Within the epeeified {imitation of 60 days Therefore, the {Dcmmiseioner else dismkesed the appeal en the grcund ef hmitatien by hie erder dated 1§~01g2002. Againet the said erder, the instant writ petition was gei'eeented befere thie Court on 25-O4«2006i after a iepee of mere than 4 years and ‘i menths. (2) i have perused the writ petition. Not a single ward of eXplenatieh is effered for the inerdihete delay ef more than 4 years and 3 menths. Hewevet, it is the centention of the teamed ceunsei for the eetitiener thet eihce the arder passed by the 3rd responderrt i3 one without jurisdiction, such an grater eeuld he assailed at any point of time, in the first place, submissieh of the learned sounse! that the order made by the SDG is one withcut jurisdiction is hat well-founded. The 3rd respohdent is a Statutory Autherity to exercise the power under Seetien 170 (B) ef the Code. A!ternetive!y, it needs to be neticeci that the eebmission made by the learned eeunsei that the Court cennet dismisethe writ petition wherever it finds that the impugned etder is one without authority of law is required to be notioed oniy to be rejected. Oh the other hand, it is settied law that even if an order made by e Court or Qeasi Judicial Forum o: Authority is one without authority ot jurisdiction, such order will remain de fecto order and it wiii have tuii Sega! foroe end oorreequenoe, unlese in an appropriate proceeding suoh order is set aside or quashed by the Court above. Here is a case where the oetitioner is guilty of steeping over the matter at every l i i Q é stage of the proceedings. He med the first appea! before the Ceilectm' and th$ secgnd appea! befere the Cgmm§35ionen Degartment of Revenue after the prescribed imitation and he i$ approaching thi$ Court invoking di5creiiana j gswer vested in thi5 Cgurt under Article 226 cf trig Consiitutieri is exercise in his faveur, after a iapse 0f mere than 4 years end 3 months, without offering even a word ef explanation for this inerdinate deiay. ‘3) ii is we” knewn principie fhai the Ceurt heips diiigeni and not incident whe sieens ever his‘right, Theugh, there i3 ne epeeiiic period of iimitation, the High Court may refuee to exercise its extraordinary, discretienery pen/er under Articie 226 of the Constitution where rhe petitioner is guilty of lashes or undue delay, for which there is no satiefacton; exnianetion. Unless the faete end circumstance 0f the case clearly justify the lechee or unduedelay, the netitioner could net be entitled te relief. lt ie imperative, if the petitioner wants to invoke the extraerdinery remedy available under Articie 226 ef the Constitution, that he sheuld came to the Court at the eariiest reasonably possible opeortunity. lnordinete delay in making the motion for a writ will he a good ground for refusing t0 exercise the discretion. it is essential that persons who are aggrieved by any order of the Government or any executive aetion or order of any statutory euthorityshoeld approach the High court with utmest expedition. The underlying object is that the Courts do not encourage agitation of State claims end exhuming matters which have already been disoosed of or where the rights of the third parties have accrued in the meantime, or where there is no reasonable explanation for deiay. This nrineiple applies even in case of infringement of fundamental rights. Where there is inordinate deiay in tiling a writ petition under Articie 226 of the Constitutien, the High Cowf may refu$e ,to exereise its iscretianary pewerS. The fact that third pamr‘s fight$ were net sreated is hardiy a ground fer interference. This principle al$o applies tr; girders which are void. Very i‘eceniiy, in Eita’ca 0.5 Rajasthan Vs. Laxmi1 ihe $upreme Com pieaSed to hold that : “Though the nrder may be veid, if the party doee not appreaeh the ceurt within reaeenable time, which is always a queetien of fact and have the order invalidated or acquieeced er waived, the diecretien ef the Court has to be exercieed. in a reasonable manner. When the disctetien has been cehferred on the Court, the Cam“! may in apprcp‘n'ate case decline to grant the relief, even if it holds that the arder wee lief-.. ” (emphasis supplied) {4) There is no hard. and fast rule as to when the High Court ehould refuse to exercise its discretiogm in faveur ef a party who moves it after coneiderabte delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. That is a matter which most be left to the discretion of the Court. However, that discretion must he exercised judiciously and reasonably. (5) tn Titokchand i‘v’iotichand v. HE. h’lunshi 2 , Htdayatullah, C.J. was pleased to observe : “The question is one of discretion for this court to' fotlow from case to case. There is no lower limit and there is no upper limit. A case may be brought within Limitation Act by reason of some article but this court need not necessarily give the v totai time to the litigant to move this court under Articie 32. Similarly, in a suitable case this court may entertain such a (‘l 996) 6 SCC 445 (453). 2. AIR 1970 $C 898 : (‘l 969) ‘l SCC ‘l‘lO, - — \ d . petition even after a lapse afrtime, It Wil! al! depend an what the mead? ef me FLIndamen$ai Right and the remedy damned are and when aad haw éhe delay amsa“ (emphaQs 3L1p§§iedy ($) in R5. $adag§va§wamy v. Stata cf TN. 3, the Suprem$ Cam emawed thuza : "It is not that there is; any pgyiad sf limitation for the courts to. exercise their pawerg under Ariigie 226 nor is it that there can ngver be a gase where the aourts cannat interfere in a matter after the passage 9f a certain iength 9f time. But i? werrld be a: sound and wise exercise 9f diseretien fer rhe eerrrrs re refrree $0 exercise their exrreertiinary growers ander Ae‘icse 226 in the case cf persms who gale nef eppmech it exeedirr'crrer’y far relief and who grand by end allcw fhr'ngs re haenen and rhea agpneech the gem r9 {Mr fem/arr! efale c/eims and try to meagre sewed merrers." / (emphasis suppiied) (7.\ A3 painted gut eupre; in this. caee, the petitioner wee guilty 0f lashes in pursuing the legal remedies befere the appellate authoritiee under the Code ee well ae betere this Ceurt. Altheugh, the petitienerhee tiled this writ eetition after a delay of 4 yeere end 3 menthe, net ene were! of explanatien ie altered in the writ petitien. On. the ether hand, in pare 4 cf the writ petition he has etated that “there is rye deiay in fiiing the instant eese and it I'e we.” within the petiod 0f iimitetion,” Quite eurioue and etrenge eesertieh ihdeed l All the three Statutory Autheritiee have refused the relief t0 the petitioner. Orr merit eleo, l am Isatietied that there ie he failure ef justice. in the eircumetance, l dismiee thie writ petitien being e‘eveid 9i merit and ales on the ground cf delay end leehee. No eoets. in.. i Sdl- Chief Justice 3‘ AIR 1974 sc 2271 : (1975) 1 scc152 7 7 ! i