Sri Shivabuddi vs The Deputy Director
2023 Latest Caselaw 797 Kant

                             1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
                        PRESENT
 THE HON'BLE MR.PRASANNA B.VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
                          AND
        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
       WRIT PETITION NO.23427 OF 2022 (GM-MM-S)

BETWEEN:

SRI SHIVABUDDI
SON OF LATE BASSAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O HASGULI VILLAGE
GUNDLUPET TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT                   ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI P MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
       DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
       CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
       CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
       CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313

3.     THE DIRECTOR
       DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
       KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD
       BENGALURU - 560 001              ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S S MAHENDRA, AGA)
                                           2




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 1 ST RESPONDENT,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DATED 26.05.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND
ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                        ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following

reliefs:

"1. Issue Writ of Certiorari, quashing the impugned endorsement issued by the 1st Respondent, Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, Chamarajanagar, bearing No.Ga Bhu E/vu ni/chamara/ka ga ku/Thiraskruta/2016-17/479 dtd. 26.5.2016 vide Annexure H.

2. Issue writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authority to consider the representation of the Petitioner dtd. 27.06.2018 vide Annexure J."

2. A perusal of the documents placed on record shows

that initially, the petitioner had submitted an application for

grant of quarry lease on 24.06.2014. The Deputy Director,

Department of Mines and Geology, Chamarajanagar, vide

endorsement dated 26.05.2016 (Annexure-H), rejected the said

application. Two years after the rejection order, the petitioner

filed a representation dated 27.06.2018 stating that the

application filed by him for grant of quarry lease on 24.06.2014

has been rejected. It was further stated that stone quarry lease

has been granted to one Sri H.M.Shanthappa whose land is

situated adjacent to the land of the petitioner. Therefore, the

petitioner requested for a similar order of grant in his favour.

There is no order passed on the said representation dated

27.06.2018.

3. Initially, the application for grant of quarry lease was

made by the petitioner in the year 2014 which was rejected in

the year 2016 as per Annexure-H. Two years after the rejection

order i.e., in the year 2018, the petitioner filed the

representation dated 27.06.2018. Thereafter, after lapse of

nearly four years, he has filed the present writ petition on

21.11.2022 giving explanation in paragraph 6 of the petition for

the delay in approaching this Court. Paragraph 6 reads thus:

"6. The Petitioner respectfully submit this Hon'ble Court that though the impugned

endorsement dtd. 26.05.2016, Petitioner was not communicated with the same only during 2018 after execution of lease in favour of Shanthappa he approached the 1st respondent authority during June 2018, then only he came to know about the endorsement as a xerox copy was furnished to him immediately he was submitted a representation the 1st respondent authority assured it will be reviewed, the Petitioner waited for positive response from the respondent authority meanwhile pandemic struck subsequently during June 2022 the Petitioner approached 1st Respondent authority where they are postponing to consider his representation ultimately there is change in the official of the 1st Respondent and there is no positive response from the respondent authority as there is no alternative remedy Petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court therefore there is no intentional delay in filing the above petition."

4. On perusal of paragraph 6 of the writ petition, firstly,

we do not find any satisfactory explanation for the delay of two

years in filing the representation dated 27.06.2018 from the

date of the rejection order i.e., on 26.05.2016. Secondly, there

is no justifiable or satisfactory explanation for the inordinate

delay of nearly four years in approaching this Court, except

making a bald statement that pandemic struck. In our

considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence.

Considering from any angle, we are unable to find any reason to

exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to entertain

the writ petition.

5. We may also make a reference to the judgment of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CHENNAI METROPOLITAN

WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS 1. It is

useful to refer to the following observations of the Hon'ble Apex

Court which reads as under:

"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at

(2014) 4 SCC 108

his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not.

Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.

17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining

innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold."

6. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkv