Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 4.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 05.09.2020 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28.04.2011 has been rejected on the ground being heavily barred by limitation.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without considering the facts as well as the cause shown by the petitioner which ought to have been considered as sufficient cause.
The Court has considered the submissions and has also perused the record.
From the perusal of the Annexure no. 5, it would indicate that the petitioner had preferred an appeal with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 18.03.2020 in the aforesaid accompanying application for seeking condonation of delay, it has been mentioned that the deponent i.e. the petitioner from 28.04.2011 till 18.03.2020. It has been in repeated touch with the opposite parties, however, he was not provided any information despite having made an application under the Right to Information Act.
It has further been submitted that the petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal, however, even then no such information was given including till date no copy of order has been provided.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he had preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing No. 36542 of 2019 wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 02.01.2020 refused to entertain the same on the ground that the petitioner has approached the Court after a lapse of 8 to 9 years, however, certain observations were made that in case if the fair price shop license has not been allotted and there is no legal impediment in this regard and the concerned authority shall proceed to take necessary steps as per the law, if the petitioner is eligible for participating for the aforesaid, he shall also be entitled for the same.
Having considered the matter, this Court is of the view that in so far as the ground of sufficiency of cause seeking condonation of delay is about 10 years is concerned the petitioner has not explained the delay nor the averments made in the affidavit inspire confidence nor the bonafides are reflected, hence, no fault can be found in the order passed by the Appellate Authority in rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, consequently, the appeal has been dismissed as time barred, however, in so far as the right of the petitioner is concerned, this Court in terms of the order dated 02.01.2020 passed in W.P. No. 36542 of 2020 has already permitted the petitioner to participate if he is eligible and in view of the aforesaid matter no further direction can be given. This Court is not inclined to entertain the aforesaid petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.2.2021 Asheesh