Punjab-Haryana High Court
Roshan Lal & Anr vs Haryana Vidyut Prasarn Nigam Ltd & Ors on 19 November, 2014
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Civil Writ Petition No. 23601 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 23601 of 2014
Date of Decision: 19.11.2014
Roshan Lal and another
....Petitioners
Versus
Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others
.....Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present : Mr. Ashok Arora, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
****
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (Oral)
Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, petitioners have approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by way of advertisement No. 143 dated 4.3.1996 erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board advertised more than 2500 posts of Assistant Lineman and Shift Attendant. Claiming themselves to be eligible AMIT KUMAR 2014.12.03 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 23601 of 2014 2 candidates, petitioners applied for the same but they were not selected. He further submits that Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Backward Classes Employees Association filed CWP No. 17812 of 1997 before this Court which came to be decided on 3.12.2008. Thereafter, an undated public notice Annexure P-6 was issued somewhere in the month of December, 2013 or January, 2014. He would next contend that the said public notice gave a fresh cause of action and petitioner No.1 applied for the post vide application dated 10.1.2014 (Annexure P-7), but the same is pending decision as no action is being taken thereon, thereby compelling the petitioners to approach this Court. He prays for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents, by allowing the present writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that present one has not been found to be a fit case for exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, at the hands of this Court. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
It is a matter of record and not in dispute that erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board issued an advertisement No. 143 dated 4.3.1996 advertising more than 2500 posts of Assistant Lineman and Shift Attendant. It is also not in dispute that petitioners applied for the advertised posts, but they remained unsuccessful in the selection process. Thereafter, petitioners did nothing. Neither they approached this Court nor they approached the respondent AMIT KUMAR 2014.12.03 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 23601 of 2014 3 authorities in this regard.
Present writ petition has been filed after an inordinate long delay of more than 18 years. No explanation, whatsoever, is forthcoming on behalf of the petitioners as to why they could not come to the Court earlier, in case they were having any cause of action. It is also not in dispute that petitioners did not challenge the selection, which was finalised way back on 23.9.1997. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that present writ petition is wholly misconceived, besides suffering from delay and laches which is liable to be dismissed.
The next argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that order dated 6.12.2008 passed by this Court in CWP No. 17812 of 1997 followed by pubic notice Annexure P-6 gave fresh cause of action to the petitioners, has been considered but has been found fallacious and the same is hereby rejected. It is so said, because the petitioners had been sleeping over their rights, if they had any, for a long period of more than 18 years. In this view of the matter, it can be safely concluded that order dated 3.12.2008 (Annexure P-2) as well as public notice Annexure P-6 will not give any fresh cause of action to the petitioners and the writ petition is liable to the dismissed, for this reason also.
Since the action of the respondents, while issuing pubic notice Annexure P-6 is not under challenge in the present case, this Court refrains from making any comments in this regard. However, so far as the petitioners are concerned, they have got no case either on facts or in law. AMIT KUMAR 2014.12.03 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 23601 of 2014 4 The abovesaid view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S.Bajwa and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, (1998) 2 SCC 523; Union of India and others Vs. A. Durairaj (dead) by Lrs, (2010) 14 SCC 389; Londhe Prakash Bhagwan Vs. Dattatraya Eknath Mane and others, 2013 (10) SCC 627; Government of India and another Vs. George Philip (2006) 13 SCC 1 and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others Vs. T.T.Murali Babu, 2014 (4) SCC 108.
The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 16 of the judgment in T.T. Murali Babu's case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:-
"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 AMIT KUMAR 2014.12.03 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 23601 of 2014 5 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. 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 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."
Reverting back to the facts of the present case and respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases, referred to hereinabove, it is unhesitatingly held AMIT KUMAR 2014.12.03 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 23601 of 2014 6 that present writ petition has since been found to be suffering from delay and laches, the same is liable to be dismissed. It is so said, because petitioners have woken up from the slumber after about 18 long years. Thus, present writ petition is liable to be dismissed, for this reason as well.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that present writ petition is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.
Resultantly, instant writ petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.11.2014 AK Sharma AMIT KUMAR 2014.12.03 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document