AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.L. Shethna, J.—Heard learned Counsel Mr. Joharl for the petitioner.
The petitioner has prayed in this petition that the respondents be directed to consider its application for grant of subsidy which was made by it prior to cut off date of 30.9.1988.
It was submitted by learned Counsel Mr. Johari that this Court has allowed identical matters and the respondents were directed to consider the applications for grant of subsidy which were made prior to the cut off date of 30.9.1988.
Assuming for the sake of arguments, that this Court has entertained such matters but the law is very clear that those who are vigilant, they are only entitled for the discretionary relief from this Court and not those persons who are not vigilant and do not move this Court for years together.
The petitioner has filed this petition only in October, 1997. Till today, the matter was simply adjourned by the different Judges of this Court. Today, we are in July, 2000. Thus, there is a gross delay of more than twelve years.
Under the circumstances, there is no question of issuing such direction in favour of the petitioner because much water has flown by now.
In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed.