Sandeep Kumar Yadav And Ors vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited And Ors

P. Sam Koshy, J

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for compensatory

employment for the land of petitioner no.2 which was acquired and also for grant of suitable compensation in accordance with the rehabilitation policy

that was prevailing in the year 1991.

Before entering into the merits of case, this Court finds that the petition suffers from delay and laches for more than one reason.

The land in the present case was acquired in the year 1991-92. The petitioners within reasonable time did not claim for any relief sought for in the

present writ petition. Moreover, Annexure P-4 is a document dated 17.8.2002, addressed to petitioner no.2 i.e. father of petitioner no.1, intimating

them that one of the petitioners for employment had already been considered by the respondents and they were found ineligible for employment in the

year 2002 itself. It appears that the said order has not been questioned by the petitioners before any judicial forum except for filing of the present writ

petition which too has been filed after about 16 years having been passed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners tried to emphasis on the fact that the petitioners have been ventilating their grievance by making repeated

approaches to the officers of the respondents both the coal mines as well as the State and ultimately when they could not succeed they have filed the

present writ petition.

So far as the writ petition to be filed within a reasonable time and so far as the issue of delay and laches is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

time and again had very emphatically held that for redressal of his grievances a person should approach the Court within reasonable time. In the

instant case, 16 years is quite a long time. Moreover, from the date of acquisition if we look into the period it is around 25-26 years which again is a

considerable period within which a person should have approached the Court for redressal of his grievance.

The question pertaining to delay and laches has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions in P. S.

Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu 1975 (1) SCC 152, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. & Another v. Jabar Singh & Others 2007 (2)

SCC 112, New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others 2007 (9) SCC 27 8and State of Uttaranchal and Another v. Shiv Charan Singh

Bhandari and Others 2013 (12) SCC 179. In all these cases, it has been held that ""it is trite law that the discretionary jurisdiction  may not be

exercised in favour of those who approach the court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction.

In case of Bhoop Singh v. Union of India 1992 (3) SCC 136, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again has held as under:

...Inordinate and unexplained delay or laches is by itself a ground to refuse relief to the petitioner, irrespective of the merit of his claim. If a person

entitled to a relief chooses to remain silent for long, he thereby gives rise to a reasonable belief in the mind of others that he is not interested in

claiming that relief. Others are then justified in acting on that belief...

The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewarage Board and Others v. T.T. Murali Babu 2014

(4) SCC 108, has made the following observations:

Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the

acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has

a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without

adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a

belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal

but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and

inaction on the part of a litigant-a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, ""procrastination is the greatest thief of time"" and second, law

does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay doesbring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.

A similar view has also been taken earlier by this Bench in the case of Smt. Leena Lucas v. State of C.G. & Another 2016 (1) C.G.L.J. 137

decided on 1.10.2015 in W.P.(S) No. 6316 of 2010.

For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition suffers from delay and laches and the writ petition stands

dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches.

Needless to mention that the reluctance of this Court in entertaining the present writ petition would not come in the way of the petitioner in availing

other remedies available to them under the law.

The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.