(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR)
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 439 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 8.10.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.4837 of 2000. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge in the pending writ petition, has passed an interim order in which it is observed that "without entering into the merits of the matter, since the petitioners are owners of the land, the petitioners will submit a revised plan and show the common plot on the southern side of the plot instead of on the roadside. If such a revised plan is submitted to the Collector, within two weeks from today, the Collector will decide the same within six weeks thereafter. S.O.to 6th December 2010."
2. The aforesaid order was passed as back as on 8.10.2010. The time limit prescribed by learned Single Judge in the order has expired long back. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge has not taken any decision one way or the other. Though, prima facie, in our view, the said order can never be said to be the judgment under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant Mr.Mishra regarding condonation of delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal against the said order and Mr.K.G.Vakharia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents at length.
4. It is required to be noted that the respondents herein have filed the substantive writ petition challenging the order passed by the Collector which was confirmed by the Secretary in connection with rejecting building construction plan submitted by the concerned respondents herein. Learned Single Judge of this Court admitted the matter and stayed the impugned order on condition that respondent No.1 herein shall not carry out any further construction nor he will transfer, alienate or part with the possession of the plots in question in any manner in favour of anybody. The matter, thereafter, reached final hearing after about 10 years. At the time of hearing, the aforesaid interim order has been passed by the learned Single Judge. It is not in dispute that the matter is still at large before the learned Single Judge; however, permission granted to the respondents herein for submitting revised plan has been challenged by the appellant after more than 439 days.
5. It is argued by Mr.Mishra that learned Single Judge could not have permitted respondent No.1 to submit the revised plan as it may nullify earlier orders. It is also submitted that the applicant came to know about such an order when the measurement was going on at the site in question.
6. The application is resisted by respondent No.1 by filing the detailed reply. It is pointed out by Mr.Vakharia that the impugned order is as such consent order and the concerned advocate appearing for the present appellant had never objected request made by respondent No.1 before learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that the impugned order is only an innocuous direction given by learned Single Judge as the matter is still at large before learned Single Judge. It is also submitted that no particulars have been given as to when actually the appellant came to know about the order in question.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. In our view, there is absolutely no substance in the application for condonation of delay apart from the fact whether an appeal against such order is maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent or not. It is required to be noted that by the impugned order, learned Single Judge directed the Collector to decide the application within six weeks. Practically about two years are over and since time limit has come to an end. Learned counsel Mr.Mishra is unable to point out whether the concerned advocate had informed regarding the order to the party or not simply because subsequently, if some other advocate is of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge is required to be challenged, in our view, is not a ground for condoning the delay unless appropriate material is placed on record to justify such delay and such inordinate delay cannot be condoned considering the reply filed by the other-side. In our view, the applicant is failed to make out any case for condonation of delay. Even otherwise, the matter is still at large before learned Single Judge. If the present applicant has any grievance on any issue of the matter, he can take out all available points in the pending writ petition before learned Single Judge. By the impugned order, the rights of none of the parties have been adjudicated by learned Single Judge and merely permitted respondent No.1 to submit the revised plan before the Collector. The points raised in the original writ petition can be examined by the learned Single Judge as the writ petition is still at large and the matter is not finally adjudicated one way or the other.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Civil Application is not required to be entertained as no particulars are given worth the name. Hence, we do not find any substance in the Civil Application for condonation of delay which may result into prolonging the matter pending before learned Single Judge. Civil Application is accordingly dismissed. It will be open for the applicant to make request for taking up the main Special Civil Application for hearing at an early date. Rule is discharged.
(P.B.Majmudar,J) (Mohinder Pal,J) pathan Top