Delhi High Court
Sh. Ramesh Kumar vs Bank Of India on 30 January, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 8037/2014
% 30th January, 2015
SH. RAMESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Siddhant Asthana, Advocate.
Versus
BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar with Mr. Gaurav
Kumar Singh, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
filed by the petitioner impugning the orders of the departmental authorities
dated 20.12.2001 and 27.2.2002 whereby the services of the petitioner were
terminated.
2. This writ petition challenging the orders of termination dated
20.12.2001 and 27.2.2002, has been filed after about 12/13 years in
November, 2014. No doubt the principles of limitation do not apply to a
WP(C) 8037/2014 Page 1 of 3
writ petition, however, what cannot be done directly cannot be done
indirectly. If the petitioner, by virtue of the law of limitation is prevented
from filing a suit challenging the orders of termination dated 20.12.2001 and
27.2.2002, this Court cannot allow a writ petition to be filed for the same
relief, because, that would amount to circumventing the law of limitation.
No doubt the law of limitation does not strictly apply to writ petitions under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but it is for this reason courts have
applied the doctrine of delay and laches to examine the issues which are
raised in a writ petition many many years after arising of the cause of action.
3. The only ground urged by the petitioner by filing an additional
affidavit for delay in filing the petition is that there were simultaneously
criminal proceedings going on against the petitioner, and in which criminal
proceedings the petitioner was exonerated, and the earlier advocate had
given the legal advice that the petitioner has to wait the outcome of pending
criminal proceedings. Interestingly, however it is to be noted that in the
additional affidavit no name of any advocate has been given who is said to
have given advice to the petitioner, and even if in my opinion the said advice
had been given, I do not think that giving of wrong advice by lawyers should
be taken as a ground, more particularly in the facts of such a case, to
WP(C) 8037/2014 Page 2 of 3
override the doctrine of delay and laches because if that is allowed to be
done, a petitioner simply by taking the plea of wrong legal advice can seek
to come to the court many many years after arising of the cause of action and
claim adjudication of his case on merits. That is, however, not the law and,
therefore, I hold that delay and laches in filing a petition in November, 2014
cannot be overlooked for challenging the orders dated 20.12.2001 and
27.2.2002.
4. The writ petition is dismissed.
JANUARY 30, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
srb
