Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of the trial Court dt. 25.07.2006 by filing writ petition on 20.09.2007 after a delay of 14 months. Hence, the respondent has raised objection about maintainability of the writ petition and prayed that the writ petition dismissed only on the sole ground of delay in challenging the order dt. 25.07.2006. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no limitation is provided for filing writ petitions which was applicable for revisions filed under Section 115 CPC and learned Counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon 'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. : (1998)8SCC685 wherein the Hon 'ble Apex Court held that time limit for filing writ petition is not provided and the High Court has to see whether the laches on the part of the petitioner are such as to disentitle him to relief claimed by him. The Hon 'ble Apex Court further held that the approach of the High Court was not right when it examined the matter as if it was a case under the Limitation Act, 1963. In the said case, the writ petition was filed after 1 1/2 years after the Tribunal set aside the respondent 's termination and the High Court dismissed the writ petition observing that there was no justified explanation for the delay. The Hon 'ble Apex Court further held the dismissal was not proper. In view of the above, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is merit in the challenge to the order of the trial Court, therefore, the writ petition may not be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
(3.) I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.;