Rupendra Kumar Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh and others

Hon''ble Mr. Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.—Heard. This is an appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P. No.4904 of 2004 u/s 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act 2006 against order dated 13.03.2012 passed in aforementioned writ petition.

By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant''s writ petition and declined to grant any relief claimed in the writ petition.

Without much going into the factual aspects of the case, and suffice it to say, the appellant (writ petitioner) claimed that he should be appointed on the post of "Shiksha Karmi" and the order by which respondent No.6 was appointed be quashed. The impugned order appointing respondent No.6 was passed in the year 1998, whereas, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition, out of which, this appeal arises in the year 2004.

So the question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether the writ Court was justified in dismissing the appellant''s writ petition on the ground of delay and laches?

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the writ Court and hence, we find no good ground to entertain this appeal and in consequence dismiss the same in limine.

In our opinion also the ground of delay and laches in the light of facts pleaded in the writ petition by the appellant (writ petitioner) disentitles him to claim the equitable relief under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

If the relief which was accrued and was available for being claimed in the year 1998 was not claimed for long lapse of more than 6 years by an aggrieved and when claimed but without any plausible explanation as to why and for what reasons, the same could not be claimed earlier, then the writ Court would not entertain such writ petition filed after six years from the date of accrual of cause of action.

It is true that filing of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not governed by the provisions of Limitation Act, it being an extra ordinary remedy available to the citizen for obtaining the relief, yet the judicial verdicts of Apex Court have consistently laid down that the writ petitioner is required to approach the writ Court within a reasonable time from the date of accrual of cause of action. It is ruled that when the Limitation Act provides a period of three years to file a suit from the date of accrual of cause of action, then every effort must be made by the writ petitioner to bring the action in Court of law at least within a period of three years but not beyond such period unless there are cogent reasons pleaded to explain the delay in filing such writ petition if filed late.

The reason for such dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay is always viewed in the light of the fact that if such delayed writ petition is entertained and relief granted to the writ petitioner then it results in creating several kinds of complications in granting relief to the writ petitioner. It is held that if an aggrieved does not approach the Court within a reasonable time, and allow the rights of the third party to intervene by implementing the impugned action which remains unchallenged by any one for considerable period, then it is presumed that no one is aggrieved by the action taken. The person receiving the benefits of the impugned action also starts enjoying its fruits whereas, the person though aggrieved sits on the fence and allow such person to go on reaping the fruits of the impugned action as if he is also not aggrieved. The aggrieved when wakes up out of slumber after considerable delay in challenging the impugned action then such conduct of the writ petitioner is never countenanced by the Courts. It is also held that such conduct of the writ petitioner is equally hit by plea of waiver and acquiescence.

As mentioned supra, there is equally an exception to this rule and depending upon the facts of each case, such as the nature of relief claimed, nature of controversy, capacities of parties in which they are prosecuting the writ petition, nature of cause of action in claiming the relief, nature of impugned action, the manner in which the writ petitioner prosecuted his grievance prior to filing of the writ petition, whether writ petitioner has been able to explain the delay etc. are such factors which must be taken into account. And if the Court is satisfied that delay is either explained the writ petition can be entertained for grant of relief on merits, notwithstanding the existence of delay in approaching the Court.

As taken note of supra, the facts of the case in hand would clearly show that writ petitioner was only assailing the appointment of respondent No.2 made in the year 1998 by filing a writ petition in the year 2004 and simultaneously also claiming a relief for himself to appoint him on the post of Shiksha Karmi. In our opinion, it was rightly declined on the plea of delay and laches apart from the plea of waiver and acquiescence because the writ petitioner failed to explain as to why inordinate delay in filing the writ petition occurred.

In the light of forgoing discussion, which alone is sufficient, we find no merit in this appeal. As a result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. No cost.