Kerala High Court
V.K.Anandakuttan vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2020
Author: S. Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WA.No.5 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.11.2019 IN WP(C) 30042/2019(E) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
V.K.ANANDAKUTTAN
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. LATE KUMARAN ELAYIDOM AND LATE. BHARATIAMMA,
PUNNAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.VII/923, (NEW NO.XV/166),
THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY, KAKKANAD VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR
TALUK, KUSUMAGIRI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
COCHIN-682 030.
BY ADVS.
DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY
DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA
SRI.GEORGE CLEETUS
SRI.P.A.SAINUDEEN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
PIN-682 030.
3 THE TAHSILDHAR
OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDHAR, KANAYANOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM,
PIN-682 011.
W.A. No. 5 OF 2020
-2-
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KAKKANAD VILLAGE, KAKKNAD P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030.
5 P.C.MANOOP
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. P.K. SATHYABHAMMA, PUNNAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, THRIKKAKARA
MUNICIPALITY, KAKKANAD VILLAGE, KANAYANOOR TALUK,
KUSUMAGIRI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COCHIN-682 030.
SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. TEK CHAND FOR R1 TO R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2020,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No. 5/2020 :3:
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2020.
JUDGMENT
S. Manikumar, CJ Challenge in this writ appeal is to the judgment dated 08.11.2019 in W.P.(C) No. 30042 of 2019, whereby writ court dismissed the writ petition.
2. Short facts leading to the writ appeal are as follows:
The writ petitioner, a landless person, was issued with pattah in respect of 9 cents of land claimed in the possession of his mother's family even prior to the year 1930. He was assigned Ext.P6 pattah on 21.02.1986 under Section 3 of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 r/w Section 7 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. Subsequently, a vigilance enquiry was conducted as per Ext.P7. Thereafter, in response to an application preferred by the writ petitioner in the year 2011, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 Ext.P12 order of cancellation of Ext.P6 pattah was communicated along with Ext.P11 on 01.07.2011. Thereafter, the writ petitioner W.A. No. 5/2020 :4: preferred Ext.P13 before the Revenue Adalath for restoration of his pattah. The Village Officer, Kakkanad Village, Ernakulam, 4th respondent, vide Ext.P16, recommended to the Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Kanayannoor Taluk, 3rd respondent on 25.11.2015 that the land is to be assigned and restored to the writ petitioner.
On account of family issues, respondent No.5, nephew of the writ petitioner, preferred Ext.P17 complaint and on the basis of the false information given by him, Exts.P18 and P19 reports were made by the 4 th respondent. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed O.S. No. 471 of 2016 before the learned Munsiff, Ernakulam claiming damages from Sri. P.C. Manoop, 5th respondent, for making false and defamatory statements in Ext.P17. The suit was decreed in favour of the writ petitioner awarding damages as is evident from Ext.P23. Thereafter, he preferred Ext.P24 complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam and respondent No.5 is being prosecuted as an accused in C.C. No. 113 of 2016. Eventhough he preferred certain communications one after another, no favourable W.A. No. 5/2020 :5: reply has been obtained by the writ petitioner and hence, he filed the writ petition with the following reliefs:
1. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the second respondent to restore Exhibit P7 pattah to the petitioner.
2. To quash Exhibit P12 order passed by the third respondent or in the alternative;
3. To direct the second respondent to expeditiously dispose of Exhibit P28 application and allow the same in the light of the pleadings made in the writ petition.
3. A learned single Judge by judgment dated 08.11.2019 dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage itself. The impugned judgment reads thus:
"The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P12 order cancelling a patta that was issued to the petitioner. It is seen that the said order is dated 28.02.1987. Although it is the case of the petitioner that he came to know of the cancellation order only as late as in 2011, there is still no explanation as to why it took him eight years thereafter to approach a competent legal forum to impugn the cancellation order of 1987. Under such circumstances, I find that the present writ petition, which seeks to impugn the cancellation order dated 28.02.1987, is hit by laches. The writ petition, in my view, is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed."
4. Eventhough Dr. Sebastian Champappilly, learned counsel for the appellant, assailed the correctness of the W.A. No. 5/2020 :6: judgment on various grounds, we are not inclined to interfere with the same for the reason that the order impugned in the writ petition is dated 28.12.1987. Though the appellant is aware of the order in 2011, writ petition has been filed in the year 2019.
5. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unreasonable delay denies to the petitioner, the discretionary extraordinary remedy of mandamus, certiorari or other relief.
6. In Virender Chaudhary v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation reported in (2009) 1 SCC 297, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"The court exercises its jurisdiction only upon satisfying itself that it would be equitable to do so. Delay and/or latches, indisputably, are the relevant factors.
"15. The Superior Courts, times without number, applied the equitable principles for not granting a relief and/or a limited relief in favour of the applicant in a case of this nature. While doing so, the court although not oblivious of the fact that no period of limitation is provided for filing a writ petition but emphasize is laid that it should be filed within a reasonable time. A discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not be exercised if the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches."W.A. No. 5/2020 :7:
7. In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T.Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, at Paragraphs 16 and 17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"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 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 does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.
17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that W.A. No. 5/2020 :8: remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold."
8. In S.S.Balu v. State of Kerala reported in (2009) 2 SCC 479, at Paragraph 17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"17. It is also well-settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". The Government Order was issued on 15-1-2002. The appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal thereagainst, they impleaded themselves as party-respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage. In NDMC v. Pan Singh9 this Court held: (SCC p. 283, para 16) "16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The 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 W.A. No. 5/2020 :9: 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."
In the light of the above decisions and taking note of the reasonings of the writ court, we find no merit in the appeal. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.
sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv W.A. No. 5/2020 : 10 :