M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties on the application for condonation of delay. Cause shown is sufficient. The delay is condoned. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up today for consideration.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 297 of 1997 (R), passed on 2.12.1997 as also the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 24.9.1999 in SLP No. (Civil) No. 8508 of 1998 upholding the aforesaid judgment. Because of the aforesaid clear pronouncement on the question involved in this case, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge under challenge of this appeal does not call for any interference.
(3.) WE have also considered the question relating to the allegation that the writ petition was not maintainable on account of laches on the part of the petitioner -respondent. We considered all the factual aspects of the case and find that in the facts and circumstances the writ petitioner -respondents has explained the laches. Therefore, we are of the view that the writ petition does not suffer from any grave or unexplained laches.;