Delhi High Court - Orders
Sunil K Aggarwal vs Secy To Goi Mod And Ors on 16 January, 2026
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 17646/2025
SUNIL K AGGARWAL .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
SECY TO GOI MOD AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 16.01.2026 CM APPL. 72889/2025[For condonation of delay in filing the Petition] in W.P.(C) 17646/2025
1. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution praying for the following reliefs:
"1. To recall the impugned order did 18081999 on grounds/errors of fact, procedure and law as stated under paras 7 to 15 of the grounds. II. To recall the impugned order dtd 18081999 after dismissing the reply filed by the Army agents being inadmissible under the law Rule 12(2) of CAT procedure rules 1987/order VI r 14 & 15 CPC 1908 ] and hear the OA/MA denovo after due reply from actual respondents/duly authorised representatives. III. To order production of the certifide true Copy of the order Impugned in the OA in view of the para 4 of the grounds as per the requirement of rule 9(i) of CAT procedure rules, 1987 and furthur allowing the petitioner to file OA based on the certifide true COPY. IV. To dispose off the pending RA against order dt 04061999 filed vide filing no 5662 dt 8/7/99(not listed by Registrar) and allow restoration of the CP CRL by setting asise the administrative order as prayed in MA F no 1563.
V. To review para 2 of the order did 04061999 as already prayed in RA filed vide filing NO 5662 dtd 8/7/99 (pending). And to examine/scrutinize the validity/legality of vakalatnama as taken on record and to pass a specific order of validation taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the misrepresentation/conspiracy in the past. And initiate appropriate contempt proceedings against W.P.(C) 17646/2025 Page 1 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 20:42:39 VSR KRISHNA for wilful impersonation /misrepresentation VI. TO pass order in the MA 131/98,132/98 & 176/98 accordance with para 10 of J. Adige's order dtd 04061999 And to furthur order listing of the MA vide filing No 700 dtd 27/1/99, MA filed vide No 3133 dtd 19/4/99 as mentioned in para 9 of the grounds above. VII. To order listing/hearing of the RA dtd 24021999 filed vide filing No 654 dtd 06051999 as mentioned in para 11 of the grounds above. VIII. To take cognizance of the criminal acts of the Army agents and initiate appropriate criminal/penal proceedings against the Army agents for the criminal usurption of executive power and involved conspiracy, fraud & falsification of official records punishable u/s 57 etc Of Army Act, 1950 and other laws.
IX. To provide for any other relief as may be deemed fit under the circumstances of the case."
2. Aggrieved by denial of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, the Petitioner had preferred Original Application No. 2996/1992 challenging the purported unlawful panel of promotion to the said post.
3. The present petition is accompanied with an application, that is, CM APPL.72889/2025, for condonation of delay of 22 years and 9 months.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the review against the impugned order dates 18.08.1999 was filed in the year 1999 itself, however, the same has not been disposed of. It is contested that the Petitioner was removed from service on 29.06.1999, while the subject OA for promotion to the post of EE was still pending before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. It is averred that the Petitioner was diverted from his other matters, including this one, as he had been unlawfully removed from his post. Apprehensions of mala fide collusion to vindictively prejudice the interest of the Petitioner have also been expressed in the application. Petitioner's writ petition, that is, W.P.(C) 4859/2016, against dismissal of his O.A. W.P.(C) 17646/2025 Page 2 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 20:42:39 seeking reinstatement in service is stated to be pending before this Court. It is averred in the application that although that petition was filed before High Court on 14.07.2004, however, the petition was only listed in the year 2016 as the papers were apparently lost by the Registry. Now that the Petitioner is expecting a favourable judgment in that case and expecting reinstatement of his service, he has preferred the present writ petition.
5. While addressing arguments, the Petitioner has emphasised that the 'delay' of 22 years was caused because his first priority was to secure his means of livelihood by way of reinstatement of his service, especially since the question of promotion will only arise when the Petitioner is in service.
6. At the outset, it is imperative to appreciate that while there is no prescribed period of limitation for preferring a writ petition, however, the same does not mean that a litigant is absolved of their onus to avail their remedies with a reasonable period of time. While exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction, it is incumbent on the Court to consider the aspect of delay and laches on part of the litigant. A litigant should approach the Court at the earliest reasonable possible opportunity and inordinate delay is a good ground to refuse to exercise such discretion [Ref. Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B. : (2009) 1 SCC 768].
7. Thus, this Court is required to weigh the reason for delay in approaching this Court before the matter can be examined on merits.
8. In the case of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley : (2024) 15 SCC 215, the Hon'ble Apex Court had expounded on the aspect of W.P.(C) 17646/2025 Page 3 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 20:42:39 effect of delay and laches in preferring writ petitions. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:
"9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that the writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or laches is one of the factors which should be borne in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action.
10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care and caution. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching the writ court is explained which would appeal to the conscience of the court, in such circumstances it cannot be gainsaid by the contesting party that for all times to come the delay is not to be condoned. There may be myriad circumstances which gives rise to the invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction and it all depends on facts and circumstances of each case, same cannot be described in a straitjacket formula with mathematical precision. The ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ court depends upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the facts have travelled.
11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been invoked and even submitting of memorials would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a natural death. In such circumstances on the ground of delay and laches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed or the applicant ought to be non-suited. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, inasmuch as the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will have to necessarily take into W.P.(C) 17646/2025 Page 4 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 20:42:39 consideration the delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court.
xxx
14. Reiterating the aspect of delay and laches would disentitle the discretionary relief being granted, this Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu [Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 38] has held: (SCC p. 117, para 16) '16. 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 scrutinise 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 does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.' "
(emphasis supplied)
9. In the present case, there is an inordinate delay of more than two decades. Although it is argued that the delay was on account of the Petitioner being terminated from his service, this Court finds no merit in the said assertion. Pertinently, the Petitioner's writ has been pending since the year 2016, despite which, the Petitioner failed to approach this Court till the year 2025. Even as per the Petitioner, he had preferred a review petition against the impugned order soon after the same was passed. Thus, his argument of being unable to prefer a W.P.(C) 17646/2025 Page 5 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 20:42:39 challenge due to his priority of securing a means of livelihood is also not tenable.
10. Even otherwise, this is not a case where the delay is of a couple months or years. The Petitioner by way of the subject O.A. was challenging the promotion panel, which would also undoubtedly have an impact on other individuals.
11. In the case of Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had specifically observed that inordinate delay can be a ground for refusing to exercise writ jurisdiction and the underlying objective behind the same is to curb stale claims from being exhumed where rights of third parties may have accrued in the meantime.
12. Similarly, in the case of Union of India v. Tarsem Singh :
(2008) 8 SCC 648, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that belated service claims ought to be normally rejected on account of delay.
Although it was noted that an exception to the same would be cases where the litigant is ailed by a continuing wrong, it was observed that if reopening of the issue will affect settled rights of third parties, the claim shall not be entertained. It was also specifically noted that in a case relating to seniority or promotion concerning others, delay would render the claim as stale and doctrine of laches and delay will be applied.
13. When the Petitioner chose to sleep on his rights for two decades, such third persons cannot be prejudiced at this juncture at the whims of the Petitioner.
W.P.(C) 17646/2025 Page 6 of 7This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 20:42:39
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner has failed to tender a cogent explanation for the delay and the present petition is woefully barred by delay and laches. Consequently, the present petition as well as the pending application are disposed of in the aforesaid terms on the ground of laches.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J JANUARY 16, 2026/sp W.P.(C) 17646/2025 Page 7 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 20:42:39