Allahabad High Court
Smt. Renu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 24 May, 2024
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39442
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 546 of 2024
Petitioner :- Smt. Renu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Pratap Singh,Ashok Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 i.e. Board of Revenue, Lucknow as well as orders dated 06.06.2022 & 03.07.2018 passed by respondent nos. 3 & 4 [Additional Commissioner (Judicial)-II, Lucknow Region, Lucknow and Deputy Collector, Tehsil- Nighasan, District Lucknow respectively].
3. Learned State Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground of laches, in approaching the Court with a delay of about one and half year and that too without explaining the same in the writ petition.
4. In support of his submission, learned State Counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Rajendra Prasad vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. [2021 151 RD 194], wherein this Court has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches as the writ petition was filed with a delay of 20 years and the same was not properly explained. The relevant portion of the judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-
"8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R & M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and others MANU/SC/0049/2005: 2005 (3) SCC 91, held thus:--
"There is no doubt that delay is a very important factor while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We cannot disturb the third party interest created on account of delay. Even otherwise also. why Court should come to rescue of person who is not vigilant of his rights."
10. A similar sentiment was echoed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Dass v. Union of India MANU/SC/7032/2007: 2007 (9) SCC 274, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined as under:--
"The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction."
11. When the issue of delay and laches came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankara Co-op Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar and others MANU/SC/0564/2011: 2011 (5) SCC 607, Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated settled position of law and confirmed the well established criteria which has to be considered before exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relevant portion is extracted herein below:--
"53. The relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches should be put against a person who approaches the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is now well settled. They are: (1) there is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its own facts. (2) The principle on which the Court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners. (3) The satisfactory way of explaining delay in making an application under Article 226 is for the petitioner to show that he had been seeking relief elsewhere in a manner provided by law. If he runs after a remedy not provided in the Statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High Court to condone the delay. It is immaterial what the Petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy. (4) No hard and fast rule, can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts. (5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of the delay."
15. Law has long set its face against delay in approaching the Court. The Courts have consistently declined to condone the delay and denied relief to litigants who are guilty of laches. Litigants who are in long slumber and not vigilant about their rights are discouraged by the Courts. Belated claims are rejected at the threshold. Rip Van Winkles have a place in literature, but not in law.
17. The rule of laches and delay is founded on sound policy and is supported by good authority. The rule of' laches and delay is employed by the Courts as a tool for efficient administration of justice and a bulwark against abuse of process of Courts.
22. The above stated position of law on the question of delay and laches on part of the petitioner, controls the facts of the case. There is no satisfactory explanation of the delay in the writ petition. The explanation for laches is self serving and lacks credibility is accordingly rejected. The writ petition is barred by delay and laches and is not liable to be entertained."
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the petitioner had not even explained the laches in filing the present writ petition after about one and half year.
6. It is found that the petitioner has not even made an effort to explain the latches of one and half year in filing the writ petition. The petitioner sit over the matter and approached this Court even without a whisper in the writ petition as to why, he had approached the Court so late.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.5.2024
Nitesh
