Narendra Bahadur Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 21771 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:53759
 
Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5544 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Narendra Bahadur Shukla
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Dubey,Shyam Narayan Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey holding brief of Sri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 4.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the impugned punishment order dated 01.10.1992 passed by respondent no.4, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

3. The petition itself has been filed after a period of 31 years.

4. On being pointed out as to how the writ petition can be entertained and as to how he seeks to explain the laches, learned counsel for the petitioner states that through the order dated 31.12.2019, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, the respondents have tried to trace out the records and thus a fresh cause of action has arisen to him. Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner states that as against the punishment order dated 01.10.1952 he has already preferred an appeal dated 28.11.1992, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition, and the said appeal being still pending, the appellate authority be required to decide the same in accordance with law.

5. The laches in approaching the Court after a substantial time has already been considered by this Court in the case of Mahendra Pal vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-A No.5351 of 2023 decided on 28.07.2023.

6. In the instant case, it is apparent that through the instant petition the petitioner seeks quashing of the punishment order dated 01.10.1992 after a period of 31 years. In case the appeal of the petitioner was pending which he alleges to have filed way back in the year 1992 it was always open for him to approach this Court within a reasonable time praying for a decision on the appeal but not approaching the Court in the year 1992 rather approaching the Court in the year 2023 i.e. after a period of 31 years initially for quashing of the punishment order and during course of argument praying for direction to respondents to decide the appeal cannot be countenanced in any manner.

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion and the judgment in the case of Mahendra Pal (supra), the Court finds that the writ petition is severely barred by laches. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 11.8.2023

A. Katiyar