V.P.TYAGI, J. - (1.) THESE five write petition arise out of a common order. Therefore they can be conveniently disposed of by one judgment.
(2.) IN all these five cases, the petitioners are businessmen and are carrying on business of sale and purchase of agricultural produce &, therefore according to them, they are very much interested in the formation of the Krishi Upaj mandi Samiti, Hanumangarh hereinafter called the 'Samiti'. For the formation of the Samiti at Hanumangarh, the Collector of shri Ganganagar completed the electoral rolls and they were published provisionally on 30th December, 1996 inviting objections from the voters. It is said that the rolls were then finalised by the collector and on the basis of those rolls, the election of the Samiti was held and the result thereof was finally notified on 23rd November, 1967. Then the Samiti started functioning, but the petitioners preferred to challenge the constitution thereof in the year 1969.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners could not say on enquiry by the court whether the term of the Samiti has expired or not or whether the Samiti is still functioning. However, it is admitted that three years have already passed since the date the constitution of Samiti was notified by the collector in the official Gazette. In Messrs. Thakurdrs Rishideo v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Alwar and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1042/68 decided on 30th January, 1971 this Court in similar circumstances was of opinion that the constitution of the Samiti was challenged by filing a writ application very late. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioners in this case as to why they did not take active interest in the formation of the Samiti when the provisional rolls were published and objections were invited by the Collector and why the challenge was not thrown to the constitution of the Samiti soon after the election thereof. This Court in Messrs. Thakurds Rishideo's writ application refused to interfere on the ground of delay. The circumstances of the present case are not in any way different from those obtainable in Thakurdas's case. I do not find any reason to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in this case when the constitution was challenged after a lapse of about two years, specially when the term of the Samiti under the provisions of the law has expired or is likely to expire shortly.;