IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that petitions must be filed within a reasonable time, and failure to provide sufficient cause for delay can lead to dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeev Verma, learned A.G.A.-1 for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:

“(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order of the learned Session Judge, District and Session Judge, Ambedkar Nagar dated 08.09.2011 passed in Case No. 174/2011, whereby the learned Session Judge granted police protection to opposite party No. 2, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.

(ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the opposite parties not to harass the petitioner.

(iii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the opposite parties not to lodge frivolous cases against the petitioner.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order dated 08.09.2011 passed in Case No. 174/2011, State Vs. Shyam Ji Tiwari, learned Session Judge granted police protection to opposite party No. 2 while he is in District Ambedkar Nagar and the said police protection continues even today. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order is passed without application of mind, as the opposite party No. 2 is criminal and many cases are pending against him.

4. Sri Rajeev Verma, learned A.G.A.-1 submits that there are five criminal cases against the petitioner, reference of which has been given on page 21 of the writ petition i.e. Case Crime No. 220/10 under Sections 147, 447, 504, 506 I.P.C. Case Crime No. 174/11, under Section 419/420/467/468/471 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 273/13, under Sections 341/306 I.P.C. Case Crime No. 24/14, under Section 323/504/452 I.P.C. and Case Crime No. 56/82 under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C.

5. Learned A.G.A.-1 further submits that the impugned order dated 08.09.2011 has been challenged after 13 years and regarding delay no explanation/sufficient cause has been given in any paragraph of the writ petition. He further submits that the petitioner has not filed complete order sheet and the current status to the case in which the impugned order has been passed. The writ petition is totally frivolous and is liable to be dismissed. However, on the ground of delay itself the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed, even though the petitioner has not filed any document or order to show before the court that the impugned protection given to the opposite party No. 2 vide order dated 08.09.2011 is still continuing.

6. After considering the argument, as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the entire averment made in the writ petition, this court is of the view that the petitioner has approached this Court at a highly belated stage after about 13 years without any explanation/sufficient cause and prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 08.09.2011. A petition must be filed within a reasonable time and it should not be vitiated by inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. As per the record there are five criminal cases against the petitioner and even though the ground and averment made in the writ petition is neither acceptable and trustworthy.

7. The expression “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 has been held to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally a delay in preferring the case may be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide is imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay. In Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, 1987 (2) SCC 107, the Court said, that, when substantial justice and technical considerations are taken against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay. The Court further said that judiciary is