Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1802 (ALL)

Ram Ajore Misra v. Union of India

2016-05-10

RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2016
JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition was filed in the year 1990 challenging the order of dismissal as well as appellate order which are said to have been passed in the year 1976 and 1980, respectively. The petitioner was dismissed from service while working on the post of Rakshak (Constable) in Railway Protection Force after disciplinary enquiry. 3. The counsel for the petitioner tried to submit that the delay in filing the writ petition was caused as the relevant documents were lost by the petitioner. He had requested the department to provide copy of the same. The said documents were not provided, as such, the delay was caused. It is submitted that the petitioner has been dismissed on the alleged charge of absent from duty for a period of one week although during the said period he was in custody in a criminal case and was managing to get bail. In the said criminal case, he has been exonerated, however, he has been dismissed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been rejected. 4. Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite parties has taken objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition in the manner in which it has been filed. It is submitted that the writ petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches as it has been filed in the year 1990 challenging the dismissal order dated 12.2.1976 and the appellate order dated 28.10.1980. The criminal case filed against the petitioner was decided on 28.11.1979. Co-accused, namely, Murli Dhar Pandey had filed Writ Petition No. (C) 291 of 1983 before Delhi High Court which was dismissed in the year 2002. 5. Submission is that the writ petition has been filed with inordinate delay of 10 years and 14 years, as such, is not maintainable in this Court. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the records. 7. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the orders impugned were not annexed which have been brought on record subsequently by way of supplementary affidavit. The writ petition was filed on 27.7.1990 challenging the dismissal order dated 12.2.1976 and the appellate order dated 28.10.1980. The explanation given in the writ petition is not at all satisfactory to condone the delay. 8. The writ petition was filed on 27.7.1990 challenging the dismissal order dated 12.2.1976 and the appellate order dated 28.10.1980. The explanation given in the writ petition is not at all satisfactory to condone the delay. 8. Even, at the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had not annexed the impugned orders which were filed by way of supplementary affidavit, as such, in case the orders impugned were not available with him, he could have filed the writ petition expeditiously without waiting for the same. Moreover, the petitioner himself is responsible for the delay caused in filing of the writ petition. 9. The Apex Court in the case of New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh & Ors; (2007) 9 SCC 278 has held 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. Relevant paragraphs on reproduction read as under: "There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. Respondents herein filed a Writ Petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the Writ Petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite 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. See Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy And Others [ (2004) 1 SCC 347 ], Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh And Anr. [ 2006 (12) SCALE 347 ] and Karnataka Power Corpn. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. See Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy And Others [ (2004) 1 SCC 347 ], Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh And Anr. [ 2006 (12) SCALE 347 ] and Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing Director and Another v. K. Thangappan and Another [ (2006) 4 SCC 322 ] Although, there is no period of limitation provided for filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, Writ Petition should be filed within a reasonable time. See Lipton India Ltd. And Others v. Union of India And Others [ (1994) 6 SCC 524 ], M.R. Gupta v. Union of India And Others [ (1995) 5 SCC 628 ]. 10. In Shiv Dass v. Union of India & Ors. [ 2007(2) SCALE 325 : (2007) 1 Supreme 455 ], this Court held: - "9. It has been pointed out by this Court in a number of cases that representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of delay. This was first stated in K.V. Raja Lakshmiah v. State of Mysore ( AIR 1967 SC 993 ). There is a limit to the time which can be considered reasonable for making representations and if the Government had turned down one representation the making of another representation on similar lines will not explain the delay. In State of Orissa v. Sri Pyarimohan Samantaray, ( AIR 1976 SC 2617 ) making of repeated representations was not regarded as satisfactory explanation of the delay. In that case the petition had been dismissed for delay alone. See State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar ( AIR 1976 SC 1639 also)." 11. In view of above, the writ petition in the manner in which it has been filed deserves to be dismissed on being filed with inordinate delay and laches. It is accordingly dismissed.