The High Court has wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the arbitrary exercise of discretion by an authority in refusing to condone delay in filing a revision petition.

S. R. Misra, J.

1. This is another series of oases where the litigant has come to this Court on account of arbitrary exercise of discretion conferred on an Authority namely, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, constituted under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act') under Section 48 of the Act, where he can go into the questions of fact as well.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that petitioner filed an objection u/Sec. 9 (2) of the Act before the Asstt. Consolidation Officer, Jalaun. The said objection was decided in favour of the petitioner. On appeal, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer against which two revisions were filed one by the petitioner and the other by the respondent allottees, the case was sent back to the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer however, decided the matter in favour of the allottees and rejected the claim of the petitioner by order dated 28-4-1980. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Oral at Jalaun being appeal no. 23/434 of 1979-80 u/Sec. 11 (1) of the Act. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent allottees filed a transfer application before the Consolidation Commissioner. The Additional Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow allowed the transfer application and the appeal, aforesaid, was transferred to Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Kanpur Dehat. Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Kanpur Dehat and aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 48 of the Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Jalaun at Oral, as the petitioner was under the impression that the subject matter was situate within the local Jurisdiction of Dy. Director of Consolidation, Jalaun, the revision was maintainable there. After about 2 years of filing of the revision, the respondent-allottees raised question of jurisdiction by moving application on the ground that Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jalaun has no jurisdiction to hear the revision which has been preferred against the order of the Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidations) Kanpur Dehat. The said application was rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Aggrieved by the order dated 20-1-1987 the respondent allottees filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3630 of 1987 before this Court, which was allowed and this Court held that the Jurisdiction lies with the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Kanpur Dehat. On 19-8-1988, the petitioner applied for copy of the order of this Court and on receipt of the same, he filed revision before the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Kanpur Dehat on 27-9-1988 along with an application Hinder Section 5 of the Limitation Act. After the judgment of this Court dated 19-8-1988, the petitioner also moved an application before the Dy. Director of Consolidation Jalaun for passing appropriate order in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition.

Sri R. H. Zaidi, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that there was no delay, negligence or laches on the part of the petitioner in filing the revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation Kanpur Dehat and the delay, if any, was occurred on account of wrong, but bonafide, legal advice and the correct position could be known only after the decision of this Court. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner fully explained the circumstances for delay but the Deputy Director of Consolidation without considering the same, dismissed the revision refusing to allow condonation of delay. Sri Zaidi specifically pointed out that the affidavit filed in support of the aforementioned application u/Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act was uncontroverted as no counter affidavit was filed denying the circumstances explained by the petitioner. In these circumstance