Madan Singh vs Union Of India & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Application to condone the delay, in preferring the appeal, is not opposed and the delay is, therefore, condoned. Delay Condonation Application

stands disposed of.

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.4334 of 2018

dated 08.01.2019.

The appellant-writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of dismissal passed against him on

01.06.1981; a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay pension and other pensionary benefits with interest @9% from 01.06.1981; and to

award damages and compensation to him to the tune of Rs.10.00 lakh.

Facts, as noted in the order under appeal, are that the petitioner was enlisted in the Assam Rifles on 20.04.1965; he was sent to jail for certain

allegations, and remained in confinement for a period of nine months; his services were dispensed with on the culmination of a summary court martial,

on 01.06.1981; and, ever since 01.06.1981, he did not take any action to have his grievance, against the order of dismissal, redressed; and he kept on

submitting representations one after another.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that, though the law of limitation may not be applicable in writ jurisdiction, still a

person, aggrieved by the action of the respondents, was supposed to invoke the jurisdiction of the writ court within a reasonable time frame; in the

present case, thirty seven years had passed since the impugned order dated 01.06.1981 was passed; mere filing of the representation would not result

in the petitioner being permitted to overcome delay and laches; and the Writ Petition wad unduly belated.

Ms. Gaura Devi Dev, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would submit that, questioning the order of dismissal dated 01.06.1981, the

appellant had filed a Suit. She is, however, unaware as what transpired in the said Suit.

While the petitioner has, no doubt, raised such a plea in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is not open to the petitioner to avail two

remedies simultaneously. If, as is now contended before us, the petitioner had filed a Suit questioning the order of dismissal, he was then required to

pursue that remedy; and he could not, simultaneously, invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. If, on the other hand, the Suit was dismissed, the petitioner

was obligated to state why, on the Suit being dismissed, he did not challenge the judgment and decree in appropriate legal proceedings.

The power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is discretionary. The High Court, in the exercise of

its discretion, would not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the

petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene, and refuse to grant relief in the

exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The evolution of this rule of laches or delay is premised upon a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily

permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and

bring in its train new injustices; the rights of third parties may intervene and if the writ jurisdiction is exercised on a writ petition filed after

unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. When the writ

jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meanwhile is an important factor which

always weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. [State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Nandlal Jaiswal & others:

(1986) 4 SCC 566].

This Court would not aid the lethargic or the indolent. In the present case, the petitioner chose to sleep over his rights for nearly four decades. The

learned Single Judge was justified in refusing to exercise discretion to entertain the Writ Petition on the ground of inordinate delay and laches.

The jurisdiction which this Court exercises, in an intra-court appeal, is extremely limited. It is only if the order under appeal suffers from a patent

illegality would interference be justified. The order under appeal does not suffer from any such infirmity.

The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.