Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner to the following relief: I. Issue a rule, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents to pay the outstanding rent to the Petitioner in respect of supply of articles/materials made him for the earthquake relief victims pursuant to the order of District Magistrate Haridwar dated 2nd, 3rd and 4th April, 1999 which amounts to the tune of Rs. 7,68,60,000/ -. II. Issue a rule, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondent No. 5 and 6 to return the relief material received by them to the Petitioner forthwith or to suitably compensate the Petitioner if for any reason the return is not possible. III. Issue a rule, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents to pay interest to the Petitioner on the outstanding rent @ 18% per annum from 02 -04 -1999 up till the payment is actually ensured. IV. Issue any writ, rule, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. V. Award cost to the Petitioner.
(2.) THE Petitioner claims to be a proprietor of a tent house situated in Haridwar. According to the Petitioner, in March, 1999 an earthquake had struck in district Chamoli and Rudraprayag for which the District Magistrate, Haridwar directed the Petitioner to provide certain relief materials to the earthquake victims of these districts. The District Magistrate, Haridwar had in fact requisitioned relief materials from various tent houses including the present Petitioner. The District Magistrate had ordered the Petitioner to send 6 trucks of relief materials such as E.P. Tents, Choldaries, Tripals, etc. All these materials ordered to the Petitioner were duly supplied by the Petitioner to the relief area, through the District Magistrate, Haridwar. The grievance of the present Petitioner is that neither the said tent materials were returned to the Petitioner nor any rent was paid for the use of this material as fixed by the District Magistrate, Haridwar. Hence, by means of present writ petition, the Petitioner is claiming a compensation, which according to him is Rs. 7,68,60,000/ - apart from other relief already stated above. The main question before this Court apart from the maintainability of the writ petition is the apparent inordinate delay in filing the present writ petition. It is a settled principle of law that people who sleep over their rights, the Court will not come to their rescue. This is first and primarily a case of inordinate delay and delay in the matter of law is always odious. As we see, the matter pertains to the year 1999. The Petitioner has approached this Court after ten years, in 2009. This delay has also not been explained in the petition. Moreover, the second hurdle which the Petitioner will have to cross is the nature of issue raised here. Obviously, the Petitioner has not supplied the material in charity, for him it was a commercial venture! How much of material has been supplied?, whether it duly reached the place or not?, how much was the rent fixed?, etc. are the questions of fact which cannot be examined in a writ petition, that too after ten years from the date the actual cause of action, if any, arose. However the first hurdle the Petitioner has to cross is of the delay!
(3.) THERE is no averment in the writ petition whereby this apparent inordinate delay has been explained. There is no whisper in the petition nor any effort made by the Petitioner for condoning this delay. All the same, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has cited certain case law to get over this hurdle. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Chand and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : (1994) 1 SCC 44, wherein in para 16, the Apex Court has stated as follows: According to us, the question of delay in invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or of this Court under Article 32, has to be considered along with the inaction on the part of the authorities, who had to perform their statutory duties. Can the statutory authority take a plea that although it has not performed its duty within a reasonable time, but it is of no consequence because the person, who has been wronged or deprived of his right, has also not invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court or of this Court for a suitable writ or direction to grant the relief considered appropriate in the circumstances? The authorities are enjoined by the statute concerned to perform their duties within a reasonable time, and as such they are answerable to the Court why such duties have not been performed by them, which has caused injury to claimants.;