IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No 716 of 2008
Shri Sharad Chand Malu Jain
...Petitioner
VERSUS
1 The State of Chhattisgarh
2 The Collector Mahasamund
District Mahasamund (CG)
3 The Chief Municipal Officer
Nagar Palika Prishad Mahasamund
...Respondents
! Smt Renu Kocher Advocate for the petitioner
^ Shri Sumesh Bajaj Govt Advocate for the
respondents
Honble Mr Satish K Agnihotri J
Dated: 05/02/2008
: Oral Order
WRIT PETITOIN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
ORAL ORDER
(Passed on this 5th day of February, 2008)
1. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding
the respondents to accept the petitioner’s highest bid,
submitted by the petitioner in the open auction held on
22.2.2000, for auction of open land of old Kanji House,
bearing Khasra No. 1273, area 3784 square feet,
situated on the way of Nehru Chowk to Gandhi Chowk,
Mahasamund.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the auction proceedings were complete but
the respondent No.3 did not complete the auction by
accepting the petitioner’s highest bid for sale of the
land in dispute. The petitioner submits that on account
of the internal dispute amongst Councilors of the Nagar
Palika, the open auction held on 22.2.2000 could not be
given effect to and no person was allotted the said
land.
3. The petitioner has filed this petition on 31st
January, 2008 after about 8 years of the date of
auction i.e. 22.2.2000. On query, as to how such a
belated petition can be entertained, particularly when
there is no semblance of any right, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was engaged in making representations and
writing applications to the various authorities. In
this process the petitioner has spent almost 8 years,
therefore this petition is not a belated one. Whether
the petitioner has acquired any statutory or legal
right by mere participating in the auction proceedings
is also not clear.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as for the respondents. It is
evident that the respondents cannot be forced to give
final effect to the auction by allotting the land to
the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not
acquired any statutory right by virtue of participation
in the auction proceedings to approach this Court for
exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction envisaged under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, belatedly
after unexplained, inordinate delay of 8 years.
5. The petitioner has filed this petition with
inordinate and unexplained delay of about 8 years. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State
of Tamil Nadu (A.I.R. 1974 SC 2271), has held as under:
“It is not that there is any period of
limitation for the Courts to exercise their
powers under Article 226, nor is it that
there can never be a case where the Courts
cannot interfere in a matter after the
passage of a certain length of time. But it
would be a sound and wise exercise of
discretion for the Courts to refuse to
exercise their extraordinary powers under
Article 226 in the case of persons who do not
approach it expeditiously for relief and who
stand by and allow things to happen and then
approach the Court to put forward stale
claims and try to unsettle settled matters.”
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v.
Nandlal Jaiswal {(1986) 4 SCC 566), which was relied on
in Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. through its Chairman &
Managing Director & another V. K. Thangappan and
another { (2006) 4 SCC 322}, held that it is well
settled that High Court in exercise of its discretion
does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent
or the acquiescent and the lethargic as the belated
approach may have the effect of inflicting not only
hardship as inconvenience but also injustice on third
parties.
7. In view of the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in several decisions and applying the
settled position of law to the facts of the case,
wherein the petitioner has approached this Court after
a period of 8 years, without any justified reason, this
petition deserves to be and is dismissed, summarily. No
order asto costs.
J U D G E