AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
There is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand â€
respondents through video conferencing.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-
i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.05.2010 passed by the respondent no.3 (contained as Annexure
No.1 to this writ petition).
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the concerned respondents to fulfill every formalities in regard to establishment
of unit and register the same in light of order and judgment dated 11.10.1999 passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court (contained as Annexure
No.5 to this writ petition).
A counter affidavit has been filed by Shri Kundan Kumar, Divisional Forest Officer, Haldwani Forest Division, Haldwani, on behalf of respondent
nos.2 and 3. In para 9 of the counter affidavit, the issue of delay and limitation has been raised and it has been contended that there is delay of more
than 10 years in filing the writ petition and the delay and laches has not been explained. In para 10 of the writ petition, doubt has been raised regarding
ownership of Shri Dheerendra Singh Bora (the proprietor of the petitioner firm) over the property.
This Court finds substance in the preliminary objection raised by Shri T.S. Phartiyal, learned Addl. C.S.C., on behalf of the respondents. The order
impugned in the writ petition was passed on 10.05.2010, whereby petitioner’s application for registration for a new unit, was rejected on certain
grounds. Petitioner has approached this Court more than 10 years after passing of the impugned order. In the entire writ petition, there is no plausible
explanation for the delay and laches.
In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition after a period of more than 10 years. Accordingly, writ petition is
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
No order as to costs.