| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1983 SLG 982 1983 SLD 982 (1983) 142 ITR 745 |
Supreme Court of India
APRIL 4, 1983 CIVIL APPEAL No. 3966 OF 1985.
D.A. DESAI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.
Prithvi Raj for the Applicant. M.V. Goswami for the
Respondent.
APRIL 4, 1983 CIVIL APPEAL No. 3966 OF 1985.
D.A. DESAI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.
Prithvi Raj for the Applicant. M.V. Goswami for the
Respondent.
State of Uttar Pradesh
v.
Bahadur Singh
Law:
Section:
Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of I ndia - Writ - Whether there is any period of limitation prescribed for filing writ petition under articles 226 and 227 - H eld, no - Whether petition could be dismissed for delayed filing especially when explanation for delay was convincing and reasonable - Held, no Facts The State of UP filed a writ petition against the decision of an appellate authority under the UP Agricultural Land Ceiling Law. The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed after a delay of 42 days and not within the usual period of 90 days prescribed for filing a writ petition. On appeal: Held No statute has prescribed any period of limitation for filing a writ petition under articles 226 and 227. The only known principle is that the Court may not examine stale causes as the Court helps the vigilant and not the indolent. This rule, which is devised on the principle of judicial circumspection, has to be applied wisely. Even on merits, the explanation offered was convincing and reasonable, because (i) in the proceedings under an Agricultural Land Ceiling Law there are no two parties as in the case of a litigation between two private parties wherein each would be prosecuting and watching the proceedings regularly; (ii ) a departmental authority may delay the moving of the higher Court for oblique motives; and (iii) public interest may suffer if such cause is thrown out merely on the ground of some delay which was explainable. The High Court's order was, therefore, set aside and the petition remitted to the High Court for. being disposed on merits. Order 1. Delay condoned. Special leave granted. 2. The narrow and only question with which we are concerned in this appeal is, whether the High Court was justified in dismissing a writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by the State of UP on the sole ground that the petition had been filed after a long delay. The High Court observed that the usual period of limitation was 90 days for filing the writ petition and, computing limitation on this basis, held that the petition was delayed by 42 days. Frankly speaking, we know of no such period of limitation…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492