9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (12) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15, 1961. The appellants then moved on November 13, 1961, the High Court of Allahabad for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders, inter alia, of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer. The petition was summarily rejected by D. S. Mathur, J., 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 Division 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 certif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llahabad,( A.I.R. 1957 All. 47.) has consistently with that view laid down the practice that writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution should be filed as quickly, after the delivery of judgment, of the inferior tribunal, as possible. A period of 90 days, which is the period fixed for appeals to the High Court from the judgments of courts below, should be taken as the period for application for the issue of a writ of certiorari, and that time can be extended only when circumstances of a special nature, which are sufficient in the opinion of the Court, are shown to exist . But in the absence of a statutory rule the period prescribed for preferring an appeal to the High Court is a rough measure: in each case the primary question is wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but by notice issued by the Court on November 7, 1961, the High Court and its offices were, without previous intimation, closed some time about mid-day for the Diwali holidays, and the Court and its offices re-opened on November 13, 1961. The petition which was intended to be filed in the High Court was sworn on October 12, 1961, and an Advocate had, it appears, been engaged by the appellants to lodge the petition, and notice as required by the rules of the High Court was served upon the Standing Counsel. There is no reason to think that the appellants would not have presented the petition on November 7, 1961 if the offices of the High Court were not closed at 1-00 P.M. The rule which has been laid down in Mongey's case, (A.I.R. 1957 Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
