Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.72 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Thressiamma Jacob Etc. Etc. vs Geologist, Dptt.Of Mining And Geology ... on 20 April, 2015
"14. The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of respondent without examining the merits, and directing the appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. The ill-effects of such directions have been considered by this Court in C.Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining
"9. The courts/Tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any 'decision' on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The tribunals/High courts routinely entertain such application/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obligerated or ignored."
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 November, 1973
This conclusion can be fortified from the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Ramachandra Shankar Deodhar and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) (1974) 1 SCC 317 which was relied on by the learned single Judge of this Court in his order dated 17.09.2014 wherein it was held that there was more than ten or twelve years in filing the petition since the accrual of the casue of complaint, and such delay was sufficient to disentitle the petitioners to any relief under Article 32 of The Constitution of India. In the present case also, the petitioners have approached this Court much after their retirement and some of the petitioners have even died. The petitioners have not any justifiable reason as to why they did not approach this Court at the earliest point of time to seek the relief which are sought for in these batch of writ petition when cause of action for them to file such writ petitions was very much subsisting at the relevant point of time. Therefore, I find force in the argument of the learned Advocate General appearing for the official respondents that the petitioners are fench-sitters/watchers and they were waiting for the litigation engineered at the instance of similarly placed persons to conclude before they file the present batch of writ petitions.
Col. (Retd.) B.J. Akkara vs The Govt. Of India & Ors on 10 October, 2006
19. By citing the above decision, the learned Advocate General would contend that the petitioners have approached this Court belatedly. Many of the petitioners retired during the year 2005 to 2015 and they have approached this Court atleast a decade or after 5 to 10 years of their retirement. Some of the petitioners have died. Therefore, on the ground of delay and laches, the learned Advocate General prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
Chandigarh Administration vs Jagjit Singh on 10 January, 1995
10.The Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration Vs. Jagjit Singh reported in 1995 (1) SCC 745 held in paragrpah 8 as follows:
Gursharan Singh & Ors. Etc. Etc vs New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors on 2 February, 1996
11.The Supreme Court in Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee reported in 1996 (2) SCC 459 held in paragraph 9 as follows:
Bondu Ramaswamy & Ors vs Bangalore Development Authority & Ors on 5 May, 2010
12.These two judgments came to be quoted with approval in a recent judgment in Bondu Ramaswamy Vs. Bangalore Development Authority reported in 2010 (7) SCC 129.
Shanti Sports Club & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 August, 2009
13. The Supreme Court in a case in Shanti Sports Club & Another vs. Union of India & others reported in 2009 AIR SCW 6953 = 2009 (15) SCC 705 after referring to all the previous case laws has held that no court shall issue such a mandamus on the specious plea of either discrimination or they were unequally treated. It is necessary to extract the following passages found in paragraphs 71 and 72 which read as follows: