2025:HHC:11494 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6954 of 2025 Decided on: 30.04.2025 Shanta Devi … Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accept notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued and impugned orders passed by the authorities below as contained in Annexure P-1 and P-4 may very kindly be quashed and set aside.” 3. A perusal of the orders impugned demonstrates that the first order was passed by Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade on 10.07.2003 and thereafter, the subsequent order was passed by the Quassi Judicial Authority on 29.03.2005. The next order was passed 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:11494 by the Quassi Judicial Authority on 18.01.2017 and the last order was passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh, on 12.07.2018. 4. On a query put to learned counsel for the petitioner, as to why the petitioner did not assail the order within some reasonable time, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the order passed against her by the Authorities concerned as the order was not intimated to her by the learned counsel representing her. When the Court again called upon learned counsel to refer to the pleadings wherein the delay was substantiated, he submitted that though there is nothing mentioned in the writ petition, but he be given time so that the delay can be explained. 5. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner at the first instance which approaching this Court by way of this petition, assailing an order almost six years after the same stood passed, was expected to have had explained the delay in filing of the writ petition. The petitioner cannot be given opportunities by the Court to fill up the lacunae. Otherwise also, this Court does not believes the version of the petitioner that she was not apprised of the order passed against her by learned counsel representing her, for the reason that this contention raised in the Court and not naratted in the petitions is the usual defence taken in all the cases by the litigant to justify the delay. 6. Be that as it may, as this Court is of the considered view 3 2025:HHC:11494 that the delay of more than six years in assailing the impugned order without any justifiable excuse does not confers any right upon the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of judicial review of this Court and further, as the petitioner has been held to be an encroacher by all the Authorities, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned orders at this stage and the present petition is accordingly, dismissed on delays and laches. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 30, 2025 (Rishi)