1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5049/2007 LRs of Abdul Ajij Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER :: 10.09.2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, for the petitioner/s. .... By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the order dated 29.5.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer in Appeal NO.3/99. By the order aforesaid, while rejecting the appeal, learned Member, Board of Revenue held that the Lime Bhatta of the petitioner was situated at the place having urban area within the area of 50 meters in South and 500 meters in West and, therefore, no permission to continue it could have been granted. While assailing validity of the order aforesaid the contention of the petitioner is that the entire livelihood of the petitioner was depending to the Bhatta concerned, and therefore, it should not have been stopped by the Board of Revenue. On asking by the Court about delay in filing the petition for writ, it is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that such delay is to be ignored looking to the fact that the order passed by the Board denies livelihood to the petitioner. I have scanned the record and found that the writ petition giving 2 challenge to the order dated 29.5.2002 was presented before this Court on 22.7.2004 and the Registry pointed out certain defects in the petition. At least eights opportunities were given to the petitioner by the Office to remove the defects so pointed out but no action was taken on behalf of the petitioner. As a matter of fact nobody cared to appear before the Office to take care of the petition wherein defects were pointed out. On 21.7.2006 the matter was listed before the Court and two weeks' time was granted to counsel for the petitioner to remove the defects but no effort was made to make compliance of the order. A four weeks' time was again granted on 12.9.2006 by the Court to counsel for the petitioner but even then the defects pointed out by the Registry were not removed. The matter was again listed before the Court on 2.11.2006 and this time too the Court took a lenient view and allowed four weeks' time to counsel for the petitioner to remove the defects, but then too no action was taken by the petitioner. The matter was again listed before the Court on 3.1.2007 and one week's time was given to remove the defects with a peremptory order that in the event of non- removal of the defects the petition shall stand dismissed without reference of the Court and then only the defects were removed by the petitioner on very next day i.e. 4.1.2007. Worth to note here that the defects those were not removed by the petitioner for a period of about 3 29 months were of very minor nature and, therefore, those were removed by the petitioner on day next to the peremptory order was passed. The writ petition thereafter came up for admission before the Court on 23.8.2007 and on that day at the request of counsel for the petitioner matter was adjourned for 10.9.2007. The sole emphasis of learned counsel for the petitioner to explain delay at first instance from 2002 to 2004, and thereafter, for not removing the defects for a period of about three years, is that the Court should adopt justice oriented approach and the writ petition should not be dismissed on the ground of delay. It is well settled that issuance of writ can very well be denied in stale matters and also if the party is claiming at a belated stage. In the instant matter the order impugned was passed on 29.5.2002 and yet no effective process has taken place to challenge the order impugned. It is really very strange that the person who is guilty of filing the writ petition at a belated stage, and even for violating the order passed by this Court by not removing defects for not less than 29 months is making speech for adopting justice oriented approach. Need not to say 4 that the Courts are meant to deliver justice and every action taken and order is passed by the Courts are always with view to deliver justice to the party entitled for it. The doctrine of delay and latches too are evolved to serve the justice. The courts also examine conduct of a person approaching just to secure justice and also the justice delivering system. A person, who is abusing process of court by just filing the writ petition and then not taking care of it by not removing the defects for years together, cannot be taken up lightly. What it appears that the attitude of the petitioner by filing this petition for writ at a belated stage, and thereafter, by not removing defects for a period of about three years is not simply casual but also gross abuse of the process and on this count alone this writ petition deserves dismissal. The conduct of the petitioner also deserves to be saddled with exemplary cost. With regard to delay in filing the writ petition, no justification is advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel on merits too, failed to point out any error with the order impugned that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.1100/- that is required to be deposited by the petitioner with Dy. Registrar (Judl.) of this Court on or before 03.10.2007. jgoyal (GOVIND MATHUR ),J.