High CourtsDivision Bench

P.R. Raghavan Nair vs The State

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 11 August 1955 · Citation: AIR 1955 Ker 77

HON’BLE JUDGES
T.K. Joseph, J · M.S. Menon, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226, 311(2)
CASE NUMBER
O.P. No. 4 of 1955
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 277 words

Menon, J.—The Petitioner was a Water Works Inspector in the service of the Government of Travancore-Cochin. He was dismissed from service and the validity of the order of dismissal is challenged by this petition.

2.

It is clear from the file that the final order of the Government dismissing the petition is order L. Dis. No. 249/53-PWC dated 30-9-1954 and there is no clear evidence as to when that order was served on the Petitioner.

In view of this and the other proved circumstances of the case we are not prepared to accept, the learned Government Pleader''s contention that this petition which was filed on 4-2-55 should be dismissed on the ground of laches on the part of the Petitioner in seeking his remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3.

A time lag that can be explained does not spell laches. "Laches" is "such negligence or omission to assert a right as, taken in conjunction with the lapse of time, more or less great, and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, operates as a bar in a Court of equity." (Ferris, Extraordinary Legal Remedies, Para 176).

4.

As far as the merits of the case are concerned, it is agreed that there has been no compliant with the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. In view of that the order of dismissal has to be quashed and we direct accordingly.

5.

The learned Government Pleader wanted as to make it quite clear that the quashing of the order will not in any way preclude further proceedings according to law, and we do so.

6.

The petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs.