Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.89 seconds)Satyabir And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 8 January, 2015
"On account of inordinate and unexplained delay of about
seven years in filing of the writ petition, the same cannot be
entertained, in view of a recent judgment of this Court in CWP
No.225 of 2015 titled as " Satyabir and others Vs. State of Haryana
and others" decided on 08.01.2015 wherein this Court after referring
to the entire law on the subject of delay, dismissed the petition which
had been filed after a delay of more than 03 years, by holding as
under;
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rup Diamonds & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 January, 1989
The
judgment of the High Court was impugned before Hon'ble the Supreme
Court, wherein while referring to earlier judgments of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Rup Diamonds v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 356;
State of Karnataka v. S. M. Kotrayya, (1996) 6 SCC 267; Jagdish Lal v.
State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538 and Government of West Bengal
v.Tarun K.Roy, (2004) 1 SCC 347, it was opined that the persons who
approach the court at a belated stage placing reliance upon an order
passed in some other case earlier, can be denied the discretionary relief on
account of delay and laches. Relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted
below:
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs S.M. Kotrayya & Ors. ... Respondents on 2 September, 1996
The
judgment of the High Court was impugned before Hon'ble the Supreme
Court, wherein while referring to earlier judgments of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Rup Diamonds v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 356;
State of Karnataka v. S. M. Kotrayya, (1996) 6 SCC 267; Jagdish Lal v.
State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538 and Government of West Bengal
v.Tarun K.Roy, (2004) 1 SCC 347, it was opined that the persons who
approach the court at a belated stage placing reliance upon an order
passed in some other case earlier, can be denied the discretionary relief on
account of delay and laches. Relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted
below:
Jagdish Lal & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 7 May, 1997
The
judgment of the High Court was impugned before Hon'ble the Supreme
Court, wherein while referring to earlier judgments of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Rup Diamonds v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 356;
State of Karnataka v. S. M. Kotrayya, (1996) 6 SCC 267; Jagdish Lal v.
State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538 and Government of West Bengal
v.Tarun K.Roy, (2004) 1 SCC 347, it was opined that the persons who
approach the court at a belated stage placing reliance upon an order
passed in some other case earlier, can be denied the discretionary relief on
account of delay and laches. Relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted
below:
Harwindra Kumar vs Chief Engineer, Karmik & Ors on 18 November, 2005
"5. So far as the principal issue is concerned, that has been settled by this
court. Therefore, there is no quarrel over the legal proposition. But the only
question is grant of relief to such other persons who were not vigilant and
did not wake up to challenge their retirement and accepted the same but
filed writ petitions after the judgment of this court in Harwindra Kumar v.
Chief Engineer, Karmik, (2005) 13 SCC 300. Whether they are entitled to
same relief or not? Therefore, a serious question that arises for
consideration is whether the employees who did not wake up to challenge
their retirement and accepted the same, collected their post-retirement
benefits, can such persons be given the relief in the light of the subsequent
decision delivered by this court?
M/S. A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. .. ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors. .. Respondents on 14 December, 2006
[Emphasis supplied]
In A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala and others, (2007) 2 SCC
725 as well, same issue was considered and following the earlier judgment in U.
P. Jal Nigam's case (supra), it was opined as under:
State Of Uttaranchal & Anr vs Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors on 23 August, 2013
(Emphasis supplied)
In a recent judgment in State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri
Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, 2013(6) SLR 629, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and
referring to earlier judgments on the issue, opined that repeated representations
4 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2020 09:42:32 :::
CWP No. 17397-2016 5
made will not keep the issues alive . A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be got
revived even if such a representation has either been decided by the authority or
got decided by getting a direction from the court as the issue regarding delay and
laches is to be decided with reference to original cause of action and not with
reference to any such order passed. Delay and laches on the part of a government
servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14
of the Constitution of India, in a situation of that nature, will not be attracted as it
is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. Even
equality has to be claimed at the right juncture and not on expiry of reasonable
time. Even if there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, yet it should be filed within a reasonable time.
Such an order promoting a junior should normally be challenged within a period
of six months or at the most in a year of such promotion. Though it is not a strict
rule, the courts can always interfere even subsequent thereto, but relief to a
person, who allows things to happen and then approach the court and puts
forward a stale claim and try to unsettle settled matters, can certainly be refused
on account of delay and laches. Any one who sleeps over his rights is bound to
suffer. An employee who sleeps like Rip Van Winkle and got up from slumber at
his own leisure, deserves to be denied the relief on account of delay and laches.
Relevant paragraphs from the aforesaid judgment are extracted below:
C.Jacob vs Director Of Geology & ... on 3 October, 2008
In Union of India and others v. M. K. Sarkar, (2010) 2SCC 59, this Court,
after referring to C. Jacob (supra) has ruled that when a belated representation
in regard to a "stale" or "dead" issue/dispute is considered and decided, in
compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such
decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving
the "dead" issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and
laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not
with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a
Court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued
without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such
direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.