Allahabad High Court
Pram Veer Jayant vs The Hindustan Petroleum ... on 17 July, 2023
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:141489-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16382 of 2023
Petitioner :- Pram Veer Jayant
Respondent :- The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramendra Asthana,Kuldeep Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nishant Mehrotra
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Shri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Nishant Mehhrotra, learned counsel for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL).
2. Present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:-
"(a) call for record of the case and issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 9.11.2022 (contained as Anneuxre No.10 to the writ petition passed by the Head of the Regional Office of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, the respondent no.3) intimating cancellation of his candidature for his selection as a dealer for running its retail outlet for Location as Village Indarpur, Block-Chilkahar, Tehsil Rasra, Distt. Ballia advertised on 25.11.2018 Category S.C.
(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Chief Regional Manager (Retail), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Gorakhpur, the respondent no.3, to dispose of expeditiously preferably within one month or as short a period as be deemed to be necessary.
(c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 not to create any third party interest or pass any order to give effect to the impugned order dated 9.11.2022 (Contained as Annexure No.10 to the writ petition)."
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for HPCL has submitted that the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the order impugned, after giving opportunity of being heard, on the ground that the plot offerred by the petitioner was not as per the required criteria of advertisement and the said order was not challenged by the petitioner well within time. The retail outlet has already been settled and Letter of Intent has already been issued in favour of another incumbent on 27.12.2022 and without impleading him as a party respondent this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of party. It is submitted that the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction with inordinate delay without any proper explanation and as such it is submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches also. Learned counsel for HPCL, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the judgment in State of Orissa v. Mamta Mohanty [JT 2011 (2) SC 164], wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court held as under:-
"33. Needless to say that Limitation Act 1963 does not apply in writ jurisdiction. However, the doctrine of limitation being based on public policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions are dismissed at initial stage on the ground of delay and laches. In a case like at hand, getting a particular pay scale may give rise to a recurring cause of action. In such an eventuality, the petition may be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and the court may refuse to grant relief for the initial period in case of an unexplained and inordinate delay. In the instant case, the respondent claimed the relief from 1.1.1986 by filing a petition on 11.11.2005 but the High Court for some unexplained reason granted the relief w.e.f. 1.6.1984, though even the Notification dated 6.10.1989 makes it applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
34. This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time. (See:M/s Rup Diamonds & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 674; State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 267; and Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2366)."
4. We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find substance in the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has not approached this Court well within reasonable time and has also not given proper explanation justifying the inordinate delay. Moreover, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on 9.11.2022 and third party interest was created on 27.12.2022, as such filing of present writ petition without impleading necessary party is not justified. The order impugned has been passed after giving full opportunity to the petitioner and he was not found suitable as the plot offerred by him was not as per the required criteria of advertisement. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has not produced any such document, which can negate the observation made in the order impugned. As such we find that even on merit the petitioner does not have any case so as to warrant interference under Art.226 of the Constitution.
5. The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 17.7.2023
SP/
