Ram Lal vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.06.2010 whereby petitioner''s claim with respect to various dues has been considered in detail and a reasoned order has been passed by Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Agra observing that judgment of Labour Court as modified by this Court vide judgement dated 10.07.2008 in Writ Petition No. 26346 of 2007 has already been complied with and whatever dues, has already been paid to petitioner and there is no further amount due to petitioner.

There is nothing to show, why petitioner has come to this Court challenging the said order after one and half years. The alleged information communicated to petitioner by Assistant Regional Manager, a subordinate officer, vide letter dated 18.08.2011 has not explained the delay and laches inasmuch as the Assistant Regional Manager has only conveyed the same information as contained already in Regional Manager''s order dated 30.06.2010. No satisfactory explanation has been given in respect to extraordinary delay and laches in the present writ petition.

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, Supreme 455 and New Delhi Municipal Council (supra). 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.

The petitioner is admittedly guilty of undue delay and laches which has not been explained at all. For granting relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, laches is an important factor disentitling a litigant for any relief, as discussed above.

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