The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for gross delay, noting the cause of action arose over 19 years prior. No explanation for the delay was found, leading the court to deem entertaining it an abuse of process.
Writ petition dismissed for being grossly barred by time.
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.
W.P.(C). No.15158 of 2016
2. 12.09.2016 Heard Sri Tripathy, learned counsel for the petition
er.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 18.6.1997 passed
by the Revenue Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Pattamundai in O.L.R. Case No.124 of 1996 under Annexur
e 3. It appears that the writ petition has been filed after at least 19 years. This Court doe
s not find any explanation to condone the delay in filing the writ petition. The writ petitio
n suffers on account of gross delay. Entertaining a writ petition against a cause of action a
fter almost two decades will not only be unsettling the settled position but it will also be
amounting to sheer abuse of process of law
The writ petition stands dismissed for being grossly barred by time. BISWANATH RATH,J.
sks
-2-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed nearly 19 years after the cause of action is maintainable?
BISWANATH RATH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court