JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner/appellant preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7097/2007 before Single Bench with the prayer that an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to respondents to make allotment of a plot in his favour in Malviya Nagar Scheme, Jaipur at the reserved price which was prevailing in the year 1981. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 15th July, 2009. The said order of Single Bench is under challenge in this intra-court appeal preferred by appellant. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that appellant got himself registered by depositing the requisite amount way back in the year 1979, but neither his registration amount was refunded nor a plot was allotted to him. He, therefore, submitted that learned Single Judge has committed an illegality in dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner and in not issuing direction to respondents, as prayed for, in the writ petition. He further submitted that one of the reason for dismissal of writ petition was delay in filing the writ petition; whereas the writ petition could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay. In support of his submissions, he referred N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998 (7) SCC 123). We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant in the light of reasons assigned by Single Bench for dismissal of the writ petition. So far as case law cited at the Bar is concerned, it is relevant to mention that the Hon'ble Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra), observed that the words "sufficient cause" should be construed liberally. Acceptability of explanation for the delay is the sole criterion and length of delay is not relevant. So far as present case is concerned, it appears that cause of action in the present case arose to appellant in the year 1981, when his name was not shown in the successful allottees. So far as refund of registration amount is concerned, he approached the District Consumer Forum and the order was passed in the year 1985. Thereafter he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed on 12.6.2000. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed before Single Bench in the year 2007. We have examined the averments made in the writ petition and we are satisfied that no sufficient cause has been shown so as to condone the delay of about 26 years. Hence, the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra) is of no help to the appellant. Learned Single Judge has considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and has observed that as alleged, plots were allotted to those, who got themselves registered in Malviya Nagar Scheme of JDA in 1979, by draw of lottery way back in the year 1981, wherein name of petitioner did not find place in the list of successful applicants. From the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and averments made by him in the writ petition, it appears that cause of action to appellant to file writ petition arose way back in the year 1981 and writ petition has been filed in the year 2007 i.e. with a delay of about 27 years for which no satisfactory explanation has been given.
(3.) APART from above, it also appears that for refund of registration amount, the appellant approached the District Consumer Forum and thereafter by way of appeal to State Consumer Forum and his appeal No.970/1995 was dismissed by the State Consumer Forum vide order dated 12.6.2000 observing that the claim of refund of amount has become time barred. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that reasons assigned by learned Single Judge for dismissal of the writ petition, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, are absolutely legal and justified and no interference in the same is called for. In view of above, we find no merit in this intra-court appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Stay Application No. 5242/2011 is also dismissed.;