R.M. Devre vs Hon''ble Home Minister

Bilgrami, J.—This application for issue of a Writ of Certiorari is directed against the order of Hon''ble the Home Minister affirming the decision of the D.I.G. of Police of the Western Range whereby the writ-Petitioner who was appointed a probationary S.I. of Police was removed from service. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The writ Applicant was appointed a probationary Sub-Inspector of Police for 2 years on 1-5-1950. On 17-7-1951 a notice was given to him under C.C.A. Rules in which he was charged with extortion and accepting illegal gratification.

On 8-9-1951, after enquiry the order of dismissal was passed by the D.I.G. of Police, Western Range. The I.G.P. dismissed the appeal of the writ Applicant against this order on 13-5-1952. The Applicant submitted an application before Hon''ble the Home Minister who communicated the order dismissing his petition through a letter dated 3-2-1954. The Petitioner prays that the order of the Hon''ble Home Minister be quashed and that the G.A.D. Notification dated 23-11-1950 whereby the writ Applicant''s dismissal was notified be declared invalid. (2) The grounds on which the writ Applicant seeks to impeach the orders impugned are:

that the appointing authority under the law was the I.G. of Police and that the D.I.G. of Police had no jurisdiction to dismiss him;

that no notice of the punishment which the dismissing authority intended against him was given

to the writ Applicant as required under Article 311 of the Constitution.

We have only mentioned the grounds which were pressed by the learned advocate of the writ Applicant in course of his arguments. It is unnecessary to relate in detail what has been stated in the lengthy writ application.

In the counter, the Home Minister through the Home Secretary denies that the Petitioner was in State service being merely a probationer and avers that a proper notice was given to him and a fair enquiry was made, and the Government passed the order impugned after satisfying itself that the charges of extortion and accepting illegal gratification were proved. He further asserts that under Sections 417 and 418 of the Hyderabad District Police Manual, the Deputy Director General of Police is competent to appoint Sub-Inspectors and also, to dismiss them and that the Hyderabad C.C.A. Rules do not apply to this case.

We are not disposed to consider this petition on merits because we are of opinion that it has been filed such a long time after the order impugn-ed was passed without showing any reasonable cause for the delay. No period for filing a writ application is prescribed under Article 226 of the Constitution but it has been the uniform practice of this Court not to entertain applications not filed within reasonable time from the date of the order impugned.

There are also numerous decisions of other High Courts in India, in which it was held that writ applications should be filed as soon after the order by which the Petitioner is aggrieved, as possible There have been cases in which Courts have even refused to condone a short delay of a month or two. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary one, and the Courts will refuse to exercise the discretion in favour of a person who has not been diligent.

Where a special remedy is provided to the aggrieved persons under the Constitution for affording them speedy and effective remedy, we think it is imperative on the person who complains of the in jury caused by any order to approach the Court without undue delay. His failure to do so without some reasonable justification should, in our opinion disentitle him to the remedy.

The Nagpur High Court in - ''Rajnandgaon Bus S. Co. v. Appellate Authority AIR 1953 Nag 80(A), has held that even an application in the ordinary revisional jurisdiction has to be made with in 45 days of the order moved against, therefore for a writ application a longer period cannot be allowed. This decision was followed in a later case - ''Krishna v. Chief Secy. to M.P. Govt. AIR 1954 Nag 151(B), by a Full Bench of the Nagpur High Court.

Though we do not wish to lay down any particular fixed period for filing a writ application, we entirely agree with the views expressed in the above decisions of the Nagpur High Court for demanding a certain amount of diligence from a party who seeks redress under Article 226 of the Constitution. I is contended on behalf of the writ Applicant that he had filed a petition before the Home Minister which was pending for a long time and was rejected only a month prior to the filing of this writ application.

We do not consider this us sufficient ground for excusing the delay. The delay which a Court can excuse (sic) one which is caused by the Petitioner in pursuing a legal remedy and not a remedy which is extra-legal or extra-judicial. It is admitted that this application was not under any law. It was merely a representation made to the Government for reconsidering its decision.

The Bombay High Court in - Gandhinagar Motor Transport Society Vs. State of Bombay, and the Travancore-Cochin High Court in - ''P.M. Philip v. The State AIR 1955 Trav-C 175 (D), have also held that the delay occasioned in pursuing an extra-judicial remedy like making representation to the Government cannot be condoned. We find ourselves entirely in agreement with this view.

In the result, this application is dismissed. We make no order as to costs.