CHANDRA BHUSHAN & ANR. versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION (REGIONAL), U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 286 · Decided: 15-12-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CHANDRA BHUSHAN & ANR. 
v. 
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 
(REGIONAi.), t;.P. & ORS. 
December 15, 1966 
' 
--
I 
[K. SUBBA RAO, C. J., J.C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI, V. 
RA~IASWA~ll 
AND C. A. VAIDIAJJNGAM, JJ.) 
Practice and Procedure-Certiorari-Rule of practice prl!scribing ni1?crv 
duys /Or filing of writ-If binding rule of /i111i1111io11-Co·zstltution of India, 
A rt. 226. 1 
The Allahabad High Court in Mo11gey v. Board of Rcl'em<e U.P. [A.LR. 
1957 All. 47] la.id down !he practice that a period of ninety days should 
be taken as the period for application for the issue of a \Vrit of Certiorcri 
and that time could be extended only when special circumstance~ 1,1,·crc 
shown to e<ist. 
The appellant who had taken all the preliminary steps 
to file a writ petition did not file It on the ninetieth day. That day was 
originally a working day; 
hut from the aflernoon onY.-'ards the court 
and its offices were closc<l. 1,1,·ithout prevlous intimation, for the Diwali 
holidays. 
The appellant fi!ed the petition on the 
re-opening 
of 
the 
court. 
The Hi~h ·Court di:;missed the petition on the ground that the 
rule of l'ractice, . prescribed a hinding rule of limitation and there \Vas no 
cxp1anat1on for not filing ihc petition on 1he ninelieth d~y. Jn appeal to 
this Court. 
HELD : 
The High Court erred in exal! ing a rule o' practice into a 
rule of limitation and rejecting the petition of the appellant without 
A 
B 
c 
D 
considering wheth,r he wos guilty of hches and undue delay. [289A-Bj 
E 
A rule ot' practice may only indicate how discretion ·will he exercised 
by the court in determining whether having -regard to the circumstanc~ 
of the case, the applicant has been guilty of !aches 
or 
undue 
delay. 
[288 Al 
Normally this Court will not interfere with the e.'(ercise of this di"-
cretion by th·o High Court but lhe special circumstances of the present 
case ju5tified a departure from the rule. [28SH] 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 973 of 1965 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
March 5, 1962 of the AJlahabad High Court in Speci,tl Appeal 
No. 43 of 1962. 
B. C Misra and D. Gohurdlzwr, for the appellants. 
C. B. Aggamala and 0. P. Rana, for respondents J\"os. I 
to 3. 
The Judgment of the-Court was delivered by 
Shah J. A 
revi~ion application under s. 48 of the U.P. Con-
solidation of Holdings Act filed by the appeJlants agai1o<l the order 
of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, was dismissed by the Deputy 
Director of Consolidation, AJlahabad, by order dated July 15, 
1961. The appeJlants then moved on November 13, 1961, the High 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CHANDRA BHUSHAN V. D.I.R OF CONSOLIDATION (Shah, J.) 
287 
Court of Allahabad for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing 
the orders, inter a/ia, of the Consolidation Officer and the Settle-
ment Officer. 1.ie petition was summarily rejected 
by D. S .. 
Mathur, 
.T., observing that the period of "limitation expired on 
·7th November, 1961 and no explanation 
had been 
furnished 
why the writ petition could not be filed on November 7, 1961". 
A special appeal against that order was dismissed by a Divisiun 
Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court observed 
that the petition was dismissed by Mathur, J., on the ground that 
it was filed beyond 90 days from the date of the impugned order 
"after excluding the time taken in obtaining a certified copy of the 
order and after excluding the time requisite for giving notice to 
the Standing Counsel under rules of the Court". The High Court 
further observed "that no attempt ... had been made to explain why 
the petition was not moved on November 7, 1961 which was the 
date on which it should have been moved in accordance with the 
principles laid down by the" High Court. Against the order of 
the High Court, this appeal is preferred with special leave. 
The High Court of Allahabad has not framed any rule pres-
cribing a period of limitation for filing 
petitio11s for writs of 
certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Ordinarily in the 
absence of a specific statutory rule, the High Court may be justi-
fied in rejecting a petition for a writ of certiorari against the judg-
ment of a subordinate court or tribunal, if on a consideration. 
of all the circumstances, it appears that there is undue delay. 
But 
the aggrieved party should have a reasonable time within which 
to move the High Court for certiorari. Sometimes· it has been 
suggested that the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.