Delhi High Court
Jaswant Singh vs Ndpl on 19 May, 2009
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 237/2009 & CM No. 7278-79/2009
JASWANT SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal, Advocate.
versus
NDPL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Diwakar
Sinha Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
ORDER
% 19.05.2009
1. The present appeal arises out of the order of the learned single
Judge dated 23rd March, 2009. Briefly stated the facts of the case are
as follows:-
2. The appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition) had
sought for quashing of the order dated 5th April, 2002 passed by the
erstwhile Delhi Vidhyut Board, whereby the penalty of reduction of
pay by three stages with cumulative effect was imposed on the
appellant as also quashing of order dated 20th January, 2005 of the
respondent whereby an appeal filed by the appellant against the
order of penalty was also dismissed.
3. The learned single Judge has rightly held that grant of writ
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary relief
and in order to exercise the discretion in favour of a party, there
should be no inordinate delay or latches. The learned single Judge
has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of M.P. Vs. Bhailal Bhai, AIR 1964 SC 1006. The learned
single Judge observed in the impugned order that though the appeal
of the appellant had been dismissed in January, 2005, the writ
petition was filed only in 2009 thus entailing a delay of more than
four years. The review petition, purported to have been filed by the
appellant, had been filed only after the expiry of more than three
years from the date of the disposal of the appeal. Therefore, the
learned single Judge correctly came to the conclusion that the
appellant was trying to rake up a stale claim which was hit by
inordinate delay and latches. The learned single Judge also rightly
held that there was no question of issuing a direction to the
respondent to dispose of the review petition purported to have been
filed in February, 2008 as the review petition itself had been filed
after the expiry of more than three years. The learned single Judge
also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.
Jacob Vs. Directorate of Geology and Mining & Anr., (2008) 10
SCC 115, wherein the Apex Court has held that the Court should be
circumspect in issuing directions to the Department for a fresh
consideration of a stale claim as such a direction leads to the revival
of the case to be considered on merits at subsequent stages.
4. As held by the Supreme Court in Harish Uppal vs. Union of
India, 1994 (Supp) 2 SCC 195, that the contention that because of
latches no third party rights have intervened and that by granting
relief no other persons rights are going to be effected is only one of
the consideration which the court takes into account while
determining whether a writ petition suffers from latches. It is a well
settled policy of law that parties should pursue their rights and
remedies promptly and should not sleep over their rights. That is the
whole policy behind the Limitation Act and other rules of limitation.
If they chose to sleep over their rights and remedies for an
inordinately long time, the Court may well choose to decline to
interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 22 6 of the
Constitution of India.
This is precisely what the learned single Judge has done. We
cannot say that the learned single Judge was not entitled to say so in
its discretion.
5. We find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of as
well.
CHIEF JUSTICE
NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.
MAY 19, 2009
sb
