The instant writ petition is arising out of orders dated 07.10.2013 and 29.03.2012 passed by the respondents 1 & 2 (Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner CDA), respectively .
2. Relevant facts are that respondents 3 to 5 filed a review petition before the respondent No. 2 against the Award dated 02.09.2005, which was accepted vide order dated 05.08.201 1. The petitioner against the said order filed the appeal, which was dismissed for non-prosecution and on account of non-filing the report by the D.C. CDA by respondent No.2 vide order dated 29.03.2012. Subsequently , petitioner also filed an application for restoration of the appeal which, too, was dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2013, hence the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner could not be penalized on account of act of the D.C., CDA; that rejection of appeal without proper opportunity of hearing is unjust while the order whereby review of the respondent 3 to 6 was accepted is against the law and facts.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that the conduct of the petitioner itself speaks about its conduct while the review filed by the private respondents was rightly accepted.
Heard, record perused.
5. Perusal of record reveals that review petition against the award of BUPs of village Sheikhpur Tehsil & District Islamabad dated 02.09.2005 filed by the respondents 3 to 6 was accepted by the respondent No.1 vide order dated 05.08.201 1.
6. Appeal against the above order was filed on 04.01.2012, which was hopelessly time barred. This appeal of the petitioner was dismissed for want of prosecution and that the Deputy Commissioner CDA failed to file report vide order dated 29.03.2012. The application for restoration filed by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2013, the order dated 07.10.2013, for restoration of the appeal against the impugned order 05.08.201 1, transpires that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on 29.03.2012, and the petitioner filed the application for restoration on 30.06.2013, which was hopelessly time barred. The order of the Deputy Commissioner/Commissioner (CDA) is well reasoned order , where apart from dealing with the issue of laches, the Deputy Commissioner has also discussed the conduct of the petitioner , as the arguments advanced by the petitioner before the appellate authority were not found plausible.
7. It is evident from the record that the impugned orders before this Court were passed in March, 2012 and October , 2013, respectively , while the petitioner filed the instant writ petition on 17.01.2020, i.e. after inordinate delay of about seven years, without advancing any plausible reason for such inordinate delay .
8. The contention of the petitioner while passing the order in review petition, no opportunity of hearing was afforded, is misconceived and contrary to record, as the order dated 05.08.201 1, not only bears the attendance of the of ficial but also the counsel for the petitioner .
09. It is settled principle that law favours the vigilant and not the indolent. Filing of the writ petition with such an inordinate delay of seven years, and that too without any plausible explanation or accompanying any application for condonation of delay , by the public functionary is an act which cannot be taken lightly . The instant writ petition suffers from laches and is accordingly dismissed.