________________
the justice then justice shoould prevail. This proposition is confused to the extent as has been done in this case when plea has been raised that where larger interest is involved, the court may ignore the statutory period of limitation even in a case where the petitioner challenged the action of the respondents after 45 years in a case where preiod of limitation is only 2 months and consciously and knowing, did not disclose any material facts in the petition like any cause for condonation of delay. At this juncture, it will be worthwhile to mention here that the period of 2 month's allowed by the statute for challenge to the said notification are in force since last more than 100 years as it was provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and kept and continued by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is in force now. If the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted than the Court is required to look into the merit first and then to the period of limitation, which would be in violation to statutory prohibition created by Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963. In our humble opinion, this type of proposition may cause more harm to justice and to the public and can result into chaotic situation as no one will be safe even when he has enjoyed the right and property since decades and centurie as in this case, almost delay of half century is sought to be ignored. In view of specific mandatory statutory provisions of law in Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 and in view of the reason given in the judgments referred above, we are unable to do so.
14. With above plea to ignore the law or ignore the period of limitation as being objection of technical nature learned counsel for the petitioner in alternative submitted that petitioner may be permitted to now submit an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay.
15. The petitioner knew it well from the time he submitted present petition before this Court that the period of limitation for filing this petition is two months from the date of publication of the notification in gazette which is under challenge. The petitioner also knew it well that limitation expired decades ago before filing this petition. The petitioner did not chose to submit any application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, when he submitted the petition. The petitioner then did not submit any application for condonation of delay in last six years by now. The petitioner though took the plea in the petition itself that period of limitation prescribed in Section 96(1) Cr.P.C. of two months is arbitrary and ultra vires did not seek any relief in the present petition for declaring part of Section 96(1) as ultra vires obviously for the reasons that the petitioner was knowing it well that he cannot claim such relief in petition under Section 96 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is not a case where the petitioner mislead by some mistake, but he did not choose to file any application for condonation of delay intentionally and voluntarily.
16. The petitioner's prayer that he may be permitted to file application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be entertained in view of the conduct of the petitioner. Firstly, the petitioner failed to explain when he was knowing it well that there is delay of
60+