Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1010 (ALL)

Dhannu Lal v. State of U. P.

2006-04-13

D.V.SHARMA, JAGDISH BHALLA

body2006
JUDGMENT : Jagdish Bhalla, J. Appellant has filed this special appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2005, passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the Appellant on the ground of delay and laches. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that the Appellant was retrenched on 8.1.1985 by the Respondent No.6 and he has not been given the benefit of Section 6Q whereas others were given. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also contended that the learned single Judge wrongly dismissed the writ petition overlooking the fact that cause of action has continued since termination and as such dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay is wholly erroneous and unwarranted. 3. In contrast, learned standing counsel submitted that the writ petition has been filed with utmost delay and no reasonable explanation has been given by the Petitioner. He also pointed out that similar special appeal filed by one Kamla Prasad registered as Special Appeal No. 203 of 2006 has already been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 27.3.2006 and, therefore, the present special appeal also deserves the same treatment. 4. We have gone through the impugned judgment and examined the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both the parties. 5. It is settled rule based on sound and proper exercise of discretion that reasonable explanation for the delay is to be narrated in the petition. 6. As regards laches in approaching the Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently taken the view starting from State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhailal Bhai and Others, AIR 1964 SC 1006 wherein a Constitution Bench had held that it is not either desirable or expedient to lay down a rule of universal application but the unreasonable delay denies to a person, the discretionary extraordinary remedy of mandamus, certiorari or any other relief. 7. In the present case, the learned single Judge has rightly observed that the writ petition is highly belated and suffers from delay and laches. That apart, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also this Court has repeatedly held, the delay disentitles the party to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is not necessary to reiterate all the catena of precedents in this behalf. That apart, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also this Court has repeatedly held, the delay disentitles the party to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is not necessary to reiterate all the catena of precedents in this behalf. Suffice it to state that the Appellant kept sleeping over his rights for long and elected to wake up after 20 years of termination of his services. 8. It is true that rules fixing time-limit for approaching the Court are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties but at the same time it is the duty of the Court to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly and not sleep over their rights. If they choose to sleep over their rights and remedies for an inordinately long time, the Court may well choose to decline to interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. From the conduct, it appears that the Appellant was not vigilant, as he ought to have been to agitate his grievance. Moreover, it is not the case of the Appellant that because of laches on her part, no third party rights are infringed and that by granting relief to the Petitioner no one else rights are going to be affected. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 12.12.2005 and the special appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed but the parties will bear their own costs.