The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of latches due to an inordinate delay of 430 days. The court held that a review application does not lie under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, rendering the explanation for the delay insufficient.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1151 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ram Murat Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Saran Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Case called out in the revised list. None has appeared to press the writ petition, which is reported to suffers from latches of 430 days.
The only explanation given for this inordinate delay is that the petitioner had filed a review application.
A review application does not lie under the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Therefore, the said remedy cannot be said to have pursued bonafide.
Under the circumstances and since, the explanation for this inordinate delay is not found to be sufficient and also because the petitioner counsel has not appeared to press the writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of latches.
Order Date :- 8.10.2020 RKM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition is bona fide due to a review application.
Whether the writ petition can be allowed without appearing to press it.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Murat
Deputy Director Of Consolidation
Anjani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
