Kamlesh Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant him admission in Special B.T.C. Course, 2008.

The aforesaid selection is already closed except to persons whose matters were remain pending before this Court when Full Bench delivered the judgment in Jitendra Kumar Soni and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2010 (4) ESC 2441. 3. The Full Bench in Jintendra Kumar Soni (supra) in para 31 of the judgement said:

31....... With respect to the Special B.T.C. Courses for the years 2004, 2007 and 2008, if the petitioners, whose petitions are pending, are eligible, they shall be considered for training for the Special B.T.C. Courses, which shall be commenced within a reasonable period.

Since petitioner admittedly has never approached earlier before this Court in respect to aforesaid matter and selection is already closed long back, no relief, as sought, can be granted on account of extraordinary delay and laches. Delay and laches constitute a serious flaw and fatal if not explained satisfactorily.

Undue delay and laches are relevant factors in exercising equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Following the cases of Government of West Bengal Vs. Tarun K. Roy and Others, and Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and Another Vs. Jaswant Singh and Another, the Apex Court in New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh and Others, observed that after a long time the writ petition should not have been entertained even if the petitioners are similarly situated and discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approached the Court after a long time. It was held that delay and laches were relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. In Lipton India Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and others, it was held that though there was no period of limitation provided for filing a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within reasonable time. In The Oriol Industries Ltd. Vs. The Bombay Mercantile Bank Ltd., it was said that representation would not be adequate explanation to take care of delay. Same view was reiterated in State of Orissa Vs. Pyarimohan Samantaray and Others, and State of Orissa and Others Vs. Shri Arun Kumar Patnaik and Others, and the said view has also been followed recently in Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, The aforesaid authorities of the Apex Court has also been followed by this Court in Chunvad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2008 (4) ESC 2423.

I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere. Dismissed.