IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.8552 OF 2018 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN:
Friends Union Fair Price Shop Rep. by its Secretary Sri Mohd. Sahir Jaan S/o. Nawab Jaan Aged about 31 years R/at No.3329 Mohd. Sait Block Lashkar Mohalla Mysore – 570 007. … Petitioner (By Sri Nagaraj N. Naidu, Advocate) AND:
1. The Principal Secretary to Government of Karnataka Department of Food and Civil Supplies Vikasa Soudha Bangalore – 560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner Mysore District Mysore – 570 007.
3. The Tahasildar Mysore Taluk Mysore District-570 007.
4. The Deputy Director For Food and Civil Supplies Department Mysore Taluk Mysore District-570 007.
5. The Assistant Director For Food and Civil Supplies Department Mysore Taluk Mysore District-570 007. … Respondents (By Sri V.Shivareddy, HCGP) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records from the office of the respondents; quash the impugned order dated 22.10.2016 passed by the R-2 in order vide Annexure-E respectively and etc.
This Petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER Sri Nagaraj N. Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 22.10.2016 at Annexure-E passed by respondent No.2.
4. When a query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner so as to why the petition has been filed after delay of 1½ years, the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out from the petition to explain reasons for the said delay in challenging the order dated 22.10.2016 at Annexure-E.
5. It is well settled in law that this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which otherwise is a discretionary in nature, would not help the person who sleeps over his rights.
6. Writ petition suffers from delay and laches of 1½ years in challenging the order dated 22.10.2016 at Annexure-E, which has not been explained. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. For yet another reason, petition cannot be entertained as the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing revision against the order dated 22.10.2006, which the petitioner has failed to avail of.
In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy which is available to the petitioner in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR