Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.57 seconds)Thressiamma Jacob Etc. Etc. vs Geologist, Dptt.Of Mining And Geology ... on 20 April, 2015
17. The Apex Court in the case of C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology &
Mining (supra) has, while dealing with the aspect of making
representations and decision thereon by the authorities, held in para 10
that the replies to such representations cannot furnish a fresh cause of
action or revive a stale or dead claim. Para 10 of the said judgment
reads thus:-
Union Of India vs Tarsem Singh on 19 September, 2019
C/SCA/998/2017 JUDGMENT
7.2. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008)8 SCC 648. It is
submitted that the Apex Court has categorically held that normally, a
belated service -related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay
and laches, where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition or limitation
where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal.
K.D.Sharma vs Steel Authorities Of India Ltd.& Ors on 9 July, 2008
22. The assertion in the aforesaid paragraph that "for the reasons
best known to the respondent authorities, the petitioner was put in
further lower scale of Rs. 3400-8300 then Rs. 4000-10,025. " is
misconceived for , the reason was very much known to the petitioner
but he chose not to disclose the said fact in the petition. Therefore, the
learned advocate for the respondent is right in his contention that there
is a suppression of facts on the part of the petitioner inasmuch as the
Page 14 of 16
Downloaded on : Fri Sep 03 06:42:23 IST 2021
C/SCA/998/2017 JUDGMENT
petitioner, though had claimed pay-scale on the basis of the order dated
5.8.2008, he has not disclosed the material facts which were against the
petitioner. Apt is the judgment, cited by the learned advocate for the
respondent, of the Apex Court in the case of K.D.Sharma vs. Steel
Authority of India Ltd. reported in (2008)12 SCC 481, wherein it has
been held that Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary.
Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial
justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner
approaching the writ Court must come with clean hands, put forward all
the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything
and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of
relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the
court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering
the merits of the claim. The Apex Court in paragraphs 38 and 39 has
observed thus:
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors on 24 October, 1986
In this behalf the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State
of M.P. vs. Nandlal Jaiswal reported in (1986) 4 SCC 566 is worth
referring to. It has been held that it is well settled that the powers of the
High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is discretionary and the High Court, in exercise of
its discretion, does not ordinarily assist tardy and the indolent or the
acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of
the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily
explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in
exercise of its writ jurisdiction. If at all, there was any cause of action
available to the petitioner, the same was in the year 2005 when the
Page 13 of 16
Downloaded on : Fri Sep 03 06:42:23 IST 2021
C/SCA/998/2017 JUDGMENT
petitioner was placed in the pay-scale of Rs.4000-10025 and thereafter,
in the year 2008, when the petitioner was reverted back to the lower
grade and placed in the pay-scale of Rs.3400-8300. However, the
petitioner chose not to challenge the same till his retirement and even
after his retirement. Therefore, the captioned writ petition suffers from
the vice of delay and laches.
State Of Jammu And Kashmir vs R.K. Zalpuri And Ors on 8 October, 2015
7.3. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. R.K. Zalpuri, reported in (2015)
15 SCC 602. It is submitted that the Apex Court, while considering
numerous judgments, allowed the writ petition filed by the State of
Jammu & Kashmir, observing that the grievance agitated by the
respondent therein did not deserve to be addressed on merits, for,
doctrine of delay and laches had already visited the claim like the chill of
death which does not spare anyone even the one who fosters the idea
and nurtures the attitude that he can sleep to avoid death and
eventually proclaim "deo gratias" - "thanks to God". The Apex Court has
further held that the writ Court while deciding a writ petition is required
to remain alive to the nature of the claim and the unexplained delay on
the part of the writ petitioner. Stale claims are not to be adjudicated
unless non-interference would cause grave injustice. Mr.Dave, learned
advocate for the respondents further pointed out that so far as the claim
of seniority or promotion is concerned, the Apex Court has categorically
held that if such claims would affect the others, the delay would render
the claim stale and doctrine of laches will be applied.
1