Shri Wandonbok Marboh vs State of Meghalaya and Others

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is not persuaded to entertain this

grossly belated petition.

The petitioner has stated the grievance in this writ petition that he was serving on the post of Cook with the respondents but his services were

terminated by the order dated 02.06.2009 without holding any departmental enquiry and without providing him any opportunity of hearing.

It appears that on the alleged grievance, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No. 415/2016 in the year 2016 that was dismissed as

withdrawn because of formal defects, with liberty to file afresh. However, even if the said petition is taken into consideration, it is but clear that the

petitioner had been sleeping over his rights for a long length of time; and approached the Court for the first time only after more than seven years.

The learned counsel seeks to explain this inordinate delay with the submissions that the petitioner had made a representation and was assured by

the authorities that necessary enquiry would be conducted; and hence he did not approach the Court earlier. These suggestions, too uncertain in

nature, hardly make out a case for entertaining this grossly belated petition. The alleged representation was made in the year 2010. Nothing has

been placed on record to satisfy as to why the petitioner did not take recourse to the appropriate legal process until filing of the writ petition in the

year 2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to suggest that there had been an incident of jail break and thereafter, the services of the

petitioner were dispensed with, although the petitioner had no connectivity with the said incident. Even in regard to these suggestions, it is obvious

that the relevant evidence in relation to such an incident, which was available in the years 2009 and 2010, must have got eroded/obliterated with

this long passage of time; and in any case, the matter cannot be ordered to be resurrected for effective proceedings, now after a lapse of about

eight years.

In the totality of circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction when the petition is found suffering

from inordinate delay and inexcusable laches.

For what has been observed hereinabove, the exercise of writ jurisdiction in this matter is declined and writ petition stands dismissed summarily.