Sudhir Agarwal, J.—

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 has been filed on 1.5.2012 challenging the orders dated 9.5.2011 and 17.8.2012. The extraordinary delay and laches has been sought to be explained in para 32 of writ petition stating that petitioner's counsel in the Court below died in October 2011 after long illness and petitioner thereafter had no knowledge of the orders passed by respondent no. 1. He came to know about the said order through a "rumour in the village" that some orders have been passed. This explanation ex facie is/was found unsatisfactory. Thereafter petitioner sought accommodation initially on 3.5.2013 and then on 8.5.2012, 15.5.2012, 24.5.2012, 29.5.2012 and 6.7.2012. In the meantime he filed another affidavit sworn on 7.5.2012 virtually reiterating what was stated in para 32 of writ petition that he heard the "rumour in village" that some orders have been passed against him and thereafter came to know about the death of his counsel and also the impugned orders and could obtain certified copy of the orders on 21.3.2012.

3. Another supplementary affidavit has been filed today

Click Here to Read the rest of this document