AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ appeal was filed on 18th September, 2006 and a report of the Stamp Reporter mentions that it is delayed by 843 days.
When asked how this writ appeal was not even listed once in the last sixteen years, learned counsel for the Appellants gave an incredible reply that it is not his duty or concern to get the appeal listed and it is the look out of the Court whether the appeal is listed or not. It must be mentioned here that this appeal was listed in its turn on the direction of the Court and not upon mentioning of the learned counsel for the Appellants.
Be that as it may, the writ appeal is not even accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. When asked about this, learned counsel for the Appellant again seeks to give only an oral response referring to Para No.2 (iii) of the writ appeal, alleging some fraud played by the State Government. A perusal of that paragraph does not reveal any explanation for the extraordinary delay of 843 days in filing the present appeal. To say the least, with there being no explanation for such extraordinary delay, the Court is not inclined to condone it. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
……………………………