- (1.)HEARD. The applicant has filed this application for restoration of the Writ Petition (S) No. 7031/2007 (Naresh Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another), which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 4th March, 2008.
(2.)THE applicant has filed LA. No. 1 for condonation of delay. THE main writ petition was listed for hearing on 4th March, 2008. On the first round the matter was passed over and thereafter when none appeared nor any representation was made on behalf of the petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The applicant has filed this application for restoration of the writ petition along with an application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 1). As per the office report there is a delay of 504 days. The explanation given by the petitioner for inordinate delay is not satisfactory. The order was passed on 4th March, 2008, the petitioner did not take any steps till July, 2009 and no explanation has been offered for the period from 4th March, 2008 to 30th July, 2009. Even the subsequent explanation is also not satisfactory. Thus, this Court is of the view that the explanation for condonation of delay is not satisfactory and does not fulfil the requirement for condonation of delay.

In U.P. Jal Nigam and another Vs. Jashwant Singh and another, (2006) 11 SCC 464, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the question of delay and laches has been examined by this Court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tridip Kumar Dingal and others Vs. State of West Bengal and others, (2009) 1 SCC768, where the appellants took559days in approaching the Court, causing unexplained and inordinate delay, it was observed that "There is no upper limit and there is no lower limit as to when a person can approach a Court. The question is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of facts before the Court depending on and varying from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose".

In Yunus (Baboobhai) A Hamid Padvekar Vs. State of Maharashtra, JT 2009 (3) SC 487, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extra-ordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party.

(3.)IN R.N. Bose Vs. Union of INdia, AIR 1970 SC 470, relied on in Yunus (supra), it was observed that no relief can be given to the petitioner who without any reasonable explanation approaches the Court after inordinate delay.
In State of M.P. Vs. Nandlal, AIR 1987 SC 251, relied on in Yunus (supra), it was stated that the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene.

In view of the foregoing, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the M.C.C. No. 344/2009 is also dismissed.