Bombay High Court
Anil Jalani vs The Shipping Corporation Of India ... on 15 October, 2016
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
PVR 1/6 4wp1856-14.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1856 OF 2014
Anil Jalani ...Petitioner
Versus
The Shipping Corporation Of India Ltd. ...Respondent
Mr.S.K.Singhvi, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.R.A.Amonkar, for the Petitioner.
Ms.Kavita Anchan i/b. M.V.Kini & Co., for the Respondent.
----
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA &
ig G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 15th October, 2016.
----
Judgment: (Per G.S.Kulkarni, J.)
1. Heard Mr.Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Ms.Kavita Anchan, learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondent.
2. The challenge in the petition is interalia to the order dated 12
July 2007 passed by the Respondent whereby the Petitioner was removed
from the services of the Respondent after a detailed enquiry. The
Petitioner had filed a departmental appeal against the said order of
removal on 29 October 2007, on which, an order dated 28 November
2007 came to be passed by the Respondent. Thereafter the Petitioner
appears to have entered into some correspondence requiring the
PVR 2/6 4wp1856-14.doc
Chairman and Managing Director of the Respondent to inform him about
the details of the Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority. This
despite the fact that the Petitioner's departmental appeal was disposed of
by an order as noted above.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that thereafter, from
2008 to 2012 the Petitioner had undertaken an employment outside the
country. After he returned back, the Petitioner addressed certain letters
dated 4 July 2012 and 21 October 2013 to which the Respondent replied
by its letter dated 25 November 2013. However, being dissatisfied with
the Respondent's reply, the Petitioner decided to file this Writ Petition
interalia assailing the removal order dated 12 July 2007, which came to
be filed on 26 June 2014.
4. The Respondents have appeared and have raised a
preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Petition being barred by
delay and laches to say that the Petitioner is asserting a cause of action
after a delay of seven years by assailing the removal order dated 12 July
2007. It is submitted that the Petitioner slept over his legal rights and
acquiesced in the removal order. It is therefore submitted that the Writ
Petition deserves to be dismissed on the principles of delay and laches.
5. We see much substance in the submissions as urged on behalf
PVR 3/6 4wp1856-14.doc
of the Respondent. What we observe from the prayer clauses (b), (c) and
(d) of the Petition is that the prayers pertain to the order of removal
which was passed on 12 July 2007. Prayer clause (e) and (f) pertain to
payment of benefit and wages and reinstatement. It would be appropriate
to note the prayers as made in the Writ Petition which read thus:-
"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased by a Writ
of Mandamus or in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to direct the
respondent to withdraw the Shipping Corporation of
India Ltd. - Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1992
on account their being arbitrary, contradictory and
violation of the Principles of Natural Justice;
(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a
Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction, calling for the papers and proceedings
leading to the order of removal from service dated 12-
07-2007, and, after going into the legality thereof, to
quash and set aside the same;
(c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a
Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction,
to direct the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner with
full back wages and continuity of service.
(d) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a
Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or directions,
to direct the Respondent to pay full back wages to the
Petitioner-I for the period 24/12/2001 to 10/10/2003.
(e) That Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a
PVR 4/6 4wp1856-14.doc
Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction,
to direct the Respondent to pay Self lease benefit to
Petitioner-I from Sept 2000.
(f) Pending the hearing and final disposal of
this Petition, be pleased to pay the wages and allow the
Petitioner to report for work."
6. The contention on behalf of the Petitioner that a challenge is
raised to the legality of the rules and hence the Petition cannot be
dismissed on delay and laches. We do not agree. It be clearly seen that the
foundation for prayer clause (a) which purports to challenge disciplinary
rules, is the basic cause of action of the removal order dated 12 July 2007
and the subsequent order passed in the appeal. The Petitioner could not
have filed a Writ Petition simplicitor seeking prayer clause (a). Therefore,
prayer (a) necessarily is required to be seen in the context of other prayers
which pertain to a stale cause of action of removal from service.
7. The Petitioner is conscious of the delay and admits the same,
however has offered an explanation. The Petitioner's explanation for delay
as stated in paragraph 30 on page 32 of the petition, in our opinion, is
completely unsatisfactory. The only explanation is that the justice should
not be taken away/ defeated because of the delay. It is further stated that
he was trying to settle the dispute without entering into the litigation, but
PVR 5/6 4wp1856-14.doc
the respondent was not ready to settle the dispute, and by letter dated 25
November 2013 the Petitioner was informed that there is no appellate
authority. It is also stated that the Petitioner recently came to know that
there is a suit filed by the Respondents against the Petitioner. Learned
Counsel for the Respondents states that the suit filed by the Respondents
against the Petitioner is for defamation.
8. From the perusal of the prayer clauses and the averments as
made in the Petition more particularly paragraph 30, the contents of
which we have noted above, we are of the clear opinion that the Petition
is barred by the principles of delay and laches. The basic cause of action
and the challenge in the petition is to the order of removal dated 12 July
2007. Admittedly, the Petitioner had undertaken a foreign employment
and he was away from the country during the period 2008 to 2012. On
an appeal filed by the Petitioner on 29 October 2007 an order came to be
passed by the Respondents on 28 November 2007 where no relief was
granted to the Petitioner. All this shows that definitely the cause of action
accrued to the Petitioner either when the order of removal dated 12 July
2007 was passed or on the order dated 28 November 2007 dismissing of
the Petitioner's appeal.
9. It is a fundamental rule that the delay has to be explained by
PVR 6/6 4wp1856-14.doc
cogent, convincing and persuasive explanation. The explanation for delay
as stated in paragraph 30 of the Petition is miserably unsatisfactory. It
appears that the petition has been filed only in view of subsequent
development that the Respondents have filed a suit for defamation. The
Petitioner was clearly negligent and slept over his legal rights and/or
acquiesced in the said orders dated 12 July 2007 and 28 November 2007
for almost a period of seven years. It is well settled that laches and delay
is an important factor in exercise of a discretionary relief under Article
226 of the Constitution. A person who is not vigilant of his legal rights
and acquiescence with the situation cannot claim a discretionary or an
equitable relief. (see "Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. vs. Jaswant
Singh & Anr.1"; "Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Jyotish
Chandra Biswas2")
10. Resultantly we summarily dismiss the Petition. No costs.
11. As Writ Petition stands dismissed, pending Chamber
Summons No.170 of 2016 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.
(G.S.KULKARNI, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
1 AIR 2007 SC 924
2 (2000) 6 SCC 562
