JUDGMENT M. Katju and D.R. Chaudhary, JJ.
1. The petitioner took a theka. In respect of which the impugned recovery has been issued. The petitioner has not disputed that he has operated the theka but he is not paying the theka money. He is challenging the recovery certificate on the ground that the recovery could not be made as arrears of land revenue and he has relied upon a decision of this Court in Raj Bahadur Singh v. Collector, Etah and Ors., 1985 ACJ 615.
2. In our opinion, this is not a fit case for exercise of our discretion under Article 226. Writ is a discretionary remedy, and in a writ petition the petitioner must satisfy the Court that not only the law has been violated but equity is also in his favour. If the petitioner only shows that the law has been violated, but there is no equity in his favour, a writ will not be issued. In the present case, even assuming that the law has been violated because the recovery could not be made as arrears of land revenue, yet there is no equity in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has not disputed his liability to pay the amount in question. He really wants to delay payment. It is well known that civil suits take years and years to decide. Hence this is not a fit case for exercising our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The writ petition is dismissed.