- (1.) D. S. Sinha and O. P. Jain, JJ. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri Ashok Khare learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Vinay Malviya, learned Standing Counsel repre senting the respondents No. 1 and 2.
(2.) AS long back as in 1991 vide its order dated 30-4-1991, the Court per mitted the petitioner to serve the respon dent No. 4 personally within a month and required him to file an affidavit of service within a fortnight thereafter. The office report dated 31-7-1997 points out that no affidavit of service has been filed by the petitioner even after the lapse of more than six years. The office report dated 31-7-1997 also points out that the petitioner has not supplied second set of record. On 1-8-1997, the Court entertained the prayer of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for passing over the case for that day in order to enable him to supply another set of record. In compliance of the office report dated 1-7-1997, mentioned above, there is nothing on record that the petitioner has supplied another set of record.
(3.) THUS, the petitioner is clearly guil ty of non-compliance of the orders of the Court and has forfeited every claim for discretion of this Court in exercise of its special and extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A party who does not bother to comply the order of the Court cannot be deemed to be a fit person in whose favour special and extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be exercised. THUS, the Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence to the petitioner. On the facts and in the circumstan ces, noticed above, the writ petition is dis missed. The interim order dated 30-4-1991 shall stand discharged. Petition dismissed. .;