DIPANKAR DATTA,J. - (1.) It is alleged by the petitioner that he was entrusted by the Port Blair Municipal Council to perform certain jobs and that after satisfactory completion thereof, bill was raised and submitted in November, 2000. The Council, however, did not take any step to clear the bill. Consequently, the petitioner had to approach this Court in its writ jurisdiction by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court by an order dated 13th January, 2009 granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation within seven days before the respondent no.1, i.e. Secretary (IP &T), Andaman and Nicobar Administration and such representation was directed to be considered and disposed of within six weeks after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and permitting him to produce documents in support of his claim. The Director (IP &T), the respondent no.2 considered the representation filed by the petitioner dated 4th February, 2009 and for the reasons recorded in his order dated 26th March, 2009 regretted the petitioner's claim. Propriety of the order of the respondent no.2 dated 8th March, 2009 has been questioned in this writ petition, which has been presented before the Court on 12th January, 2011.
(2.) Preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Rao and Mr. Tabraiz, learned advocates representing the respective respondents. According to them, apart from the fact that the writ petition is grossly belated without any reasonable explanation for such belated approach, the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact which can not be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
(3.) Mr. Rajinder Singh, learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that an opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to explain the reason as to why the writ petition could not be presented earlier.;