- (1.) This is an intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P. No.5212/2006 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules against an order dated 7.8.2009 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition.
(2.) The appellant was essentially aggrieved by the order passed by Revisionary Authority dt 30.4.96 passed under MMRD Act by which Revisionary Authority upheld the revocation of sanction dated 31.7.93 granted to appellant for quarry lease. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by impugned order on the ground of delay and laches because it was noticed that writ petition was filed on 19.4.2005 against these two orders i.e. order of revocation dt 31.7.93 and dt 30.4.96 passed by Revisionary Authority.
(3.) This is what the learned Single judge held: "1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 30.4.96 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan, whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 31.7.93 passed by the Assistant Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, revoking the sanction for quarry licence, stands dismissed. 2. Against the order impugned dated 30.4.96, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 19.4.05. It is submitted by the learned counsel that assailing the order dated 30.4.96 (Defect) before this Court, which was dismissed for non removal of defects under a pre emptory order dated 30.9.97 passed by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner's counsel could know about the dismissal of the writ petition only in the month of November, 2001, therefore, the writ petition could not be filed immediately after the dismissal of the earlier petition. 3. Admittedly, no efforts were made by the petitioner for restoration of earlier writ petition, which was dismissed for non prosecution. That apart, there is no explanation whatsoever that what prevented the petitioner to file the petition immediately after coming to know about the dismissal of the earlier writ petition in the month of November, 2001. 4. It is settled law that a person aggrieved by any illegal action should approach this Court with utmost expedition. The explanation of the delay set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is not plausible and, therefore, not acceptable. The writ petition filed suffers from the vice of inordinate delay and laches, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs." ;