Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in the present writ petition filed in the year 2011 seeks to impugn an auction held on 28.07.2004. Heard. Considered.
(2.) THE petitioner appears to have approached the Consumer Forum, Ajmer aggrieved of the non -acceptance of his highest bid in respect of plot in question. But the same was dismissed by the Consumer Forum, Ajmer, vide its order dated 30.07.2007, holding that it had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. The petitioner carried the matter further in appeal to the State Commission which upheld the order of the Consumer Forum. It is relevant to note that in the order dated 09.09.2009, the State Commission has recorded that the petitioner sought liberty to file a civil suit before the competent civil court. Thereupon the State Commissioner observed that the petitioner would be free to approach the competent civil court for adjudication of the matter and for that purpose, the time spent before the District Forum as well as before it be taken into consideration and exempted with reference to Section 14 of the Limitation Act by the competent civil court. In my considered opinion, the petitioner having wrongly approached the consumer forum cannot furnish any conceivable ground for overcoming the doctrine of laches inasmuch as misguided proceedings taken by an aggrieved party before an incompetent forum do not lessen consequence of delay and does not render a stale claim entertainable by courts. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M. Prabhakar & Ors. [ : (2011) 5 SCC 607] has held that if the petitioner runs after a remedy not provided in the statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High Court to condone the delay and it is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy. It also appears from the averments in the writ petition that the plot in issues in respect of which the petitioner having made the highest bid claims an indefeasible right to the sale thereof in his favour, has been sold by the UIT in favour of Smt. Vijyanta Jain W/o Santosh Jain. Aside of the above, the order dated 09.09.2009 passed by the State Commissioner records liberty sought by the petitioner to approach a competent civil court. The petitioner does not appear to have approached the competent civil court and has instead filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contrary to the liberty sought before the State Commission. On this count also I am of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I therefore find no force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches. Stay application also dismissed.;