AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Durga Prasad Verma, learned Counsel for Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents.
By means of present writ petition, Petitioner has prayed for cancellation of order dated 01.03.1994 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed by Respondent No. 4 by which promotion of Petitioner on the post in question cancelled.
Learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that present writ petition filed by Petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as by means of present writ petition, Petitioner challenged order dated 01.03.1994 passed more than 17 years back, so the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Sri D.P. Verma, learned Counsel for Petitioner does not dispute that impugned order under challenge in present writ petition passed on 0103.1994 but he submits that he has explained the delay and laches in Paragraph 14 to the Writ petition which is quoted as under:
That due to financial crisis, the Petitioner was suffering from unavoidable hardship so he could not approach this Hon''ble Court earlier. Therefore, the delay if any, in approaching this Hon''ble Court, the same may be kindly be condoned, in the interest of justice.
After hearing learned Counsel for parties and going through the record, it is not disputed that in present case Petitioner has challenged order dated 01.03.1994 then the cause of action which occurred to the Petitioner relates to 17 years back and further the delay and laches as explained by Petitioner thereby approaching this Court at belated stage as Paragraph 14 to the writ petition is not sufficient on the basis of which the delay is condoned in order to enable the Petitioner to get remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court in view of the law as laid down by this Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 after relying on the earlier judgment passed in the case of Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the Hon''ble Apex Court in Paragraph 6 has held as under:
The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustice, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weights with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.
In the case of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining Indus. Est. and Another, the Apex court held as under:
We are constrained to refer to the several facets of the issue only to emphasize the need for circumspection and care in issuing directions for consideration. If the representation is on the face of it is stale, or does not contain particulars to show that it is regarding a live claim courts should desist from directing consideration of such claims.
In the case of Naresh Kumar Vs. Department of Atomic Energy and Others, Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under:
If an employee keeps making representation after representation which are consistently rejected then the Appellant cannot claim any relief on that ground. We are unable to find any merit in the contention raised before us and we are also of the view that the High Court was not in error while dismissing the writ petition even on the ground of unexplained delay and laches.
Recently, in the case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, held as under:
Para - 23 - In our opinion, therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy was available to the Appellants u/s 17 of the Act. It is well-settled that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person. (See: Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, State Bank of India v. Allied Chemical Laboratories and Anr. (2006) 9 SCC 252.
Para - 24- In City and Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others, this Court had observed that:
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the Petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors.
Again, Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty, in respect to matter in delay and laches in filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Paragraph Nos. 53 & 54 held as under:
Para 53 - Needless to say that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply in writ jurisdiction. However, the doctrine of limitation being based on public policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions are dismissed at initial stage on the ground of delay and laches. In a case like at hand, getting a particular pay scale may give rise to a recurring cause of action. In such an eventuality, the petition may be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and the court may refuse to grant relief for the initial period in case of an unexplained and inordinate delay. In the instant case, the Respondent claimed the relief from 01.01.1986 by filing a petition on 11.11.2005 but the High Court for some explained reason granted the relief w.e.f. 1.6.1986, though even the Notification dated 6.10.1989 makes it applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
Para 54 - This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the Petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time (See Rup Diamonds and Others Vs. Union of India and Others,
Accordingly, I am of the view that the relief as claimed by the Petitioner in present case cannot be granted on the ground of delay and laches.
For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.