Delhi High Court
Rajeshwar Dayal vs General Manager, Central West ... on 6 November, 2015
$~18.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10416/2015
% Judgment dated 6th November, 2015
RAJESHWAR DAYAL ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Vinod Zutshi, Adv.
versus
GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL
WEST RAILWAY & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Ms.Madhulika Agarwal, Adv. for Mr.J.K.
Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to quash/ set aside
the order dated 30.4.2013 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), in O.A.No.2633/2012. The
petitioner also seeks condonation of delay in filing the Original
Application before the Tribunal and a direction to remand the matter back
to the Tribunal, for deciding the same on merits.
2. In this case, petitioner filed an O.A. before the Tribunal along with an
application seeking condonation of delay. Although the Tribunal had
issued notice in the application seeking condonation of delay, the
respondent had filed a detailed reply. The Tribunal has noticed that in the
reply, the respondent had raised a preliminary objection with regard to the
maintainability of the O.A. on the ground of delay. The petitioner has
sought to explain the delay in filing the appeal on the ground that after the
order dated 14.9.2009, communicated on 15.9.2009, the petitioner
submitted a Mercy Appeal to the Additional Divisional Railway Manager
on 26.11.2009 and thereafter issued a reminder on 10.2.2010. Counsel for
the petitioner had submitted that since the petitioner had made a
representation he did not approach the Tribunal. Similar submission has
been made before this Court as well.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In our view, there is no
infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal as there is no satisfactory
reasoning for the delay in filing the O.A. for the reason that the
representation of the petitioner was also rejected on 10.2.2010 but the
petitioner did not approach the Tribunal for a period of one year and six
months. We also find that there are unexplained delay and laches on the
part of the petitioner in approaching this Court inasmuch as that the
Tribunal dismissed the O.A. on 30.4.2013 and the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition on 30.10.2015. No cogent explanation has been
rendered by the petitioner for the delay in approaching this Court as well.
The Tribunal while relying upon the decision rendered by Supreme Court
of India in the cases of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, reported
at (1998) SCC 123; P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, reported at
(1997) 7 SCC 556); and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation
of Briham Mumbai, reported at (2012) 5 SCC 157, dismissed the
Original Application, as the Tribunal found that the delay was not
satisfactorily explained.
4. In the case of Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.,
reported at AIR 2014 SC 1612, it has been held as under:
"11. The courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach
in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. However the
court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction
between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides of an
inaction or negligence would deprive a party of the protection of
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient cause is a condition
precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning the
delay. This Court has time and again held that when mandatory
provision is not complied with and that delay is not properly,
satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone
the delay on sympathetic grounds alone.
12. It is also a well settled principle of law that if some person has
taken a relief approaching the Court just or immediately after the
cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take benefit
thereof approaching the court at a belated stage for the reason that
they cannot be permitted to take the impetus of the order passed at
the behest of some diligent person.
13. In State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors., (1996)
6 SCC 267, this Court rejected the contention that a petition should
be considered ignoring the delay and laches on the ground that he
filed the petition just 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. The Court observed that
such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for
ignoring delay and laches.
14. Same view has been reiterated by this Court in Jagdish Lal
& Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2366,
observing as under:-
"Suffice it to state that appellants kept sleeping over their rights
for long and elected to wake-up when they had the impetus from Vir
Pal Chauhan and Ajit Singh's ratios...Therefore desperate attempts
of the appellants to re-do the seniority, held by them in various
cadre.... are not amenable to the judicial review at this belated
stage. The High Court, therefore, has rightly dismissed the writ
petition on the ground of delay as well."
5. In view of settled law, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the
Tribunal. No grounds are made out to entertain this petition, which is also
barred by delay and laches. Dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
NOVEMBER 06, 2015
msr
