Delhi High Court
Dharam Singh Bhawalal Kakarwal vs Union Of India & Ors. on 6 December, 2021
$~S-47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13759/2021
DHARAM SINGH BHAWALAL KAKARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Saroj Kumar Singh, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Manisha Agrawal Narain,
Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 06th December, 2021.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
C.M.No.43448/2021
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.13759/2021
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24th
November 2007 passed by the Commandant, CISF dismissing the Petitioner
from service. Petitioner also seeks directions to the Respondents to reinstate
the Petitioner in the service and release the arrears of pay and allowances to
which the petitioner is entitled.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that an argument between the
petitioner and Constable V.K. Naidu resulted in an enquiry against the
petitioner wherein the petitioner was directed to appear in the Orderly room
Signature Not Verified
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:09.12.2021
10:39:31
on 20th June 2007. He further states in the Orderly room several false
allegations were levelled against the Petitioner and he was forcefully
administered liquor by Constable V.K. Naidu, S.K. Meena and CHM Ashok
Kumar after which his medical tests were conducted.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was
dismissed from service on the ground of four charges vide an order dated
24th November 2007. He states that the aforesaid order is a biased order .
The petitioner has been intentionally implicated in a false case and he never
quarreled with Constable V.K. Naidu.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the appeal preferred by
the Petitioner before DIG was dismissed vide order dated 6th February 2008
and the subsequent revision petition was also dismissed vide order dated 26th
May 2008.
5. He further states that Petitioner approached the High Court of
Bombay at Aurangabad wherein the Respondents were directed to release
the documents pertaining to the Petitioner vide order dated 21st February
2017. However, he contends that the Petitioner was provided with an
incomplete set of documents by the Respondent in April 2017.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondents, who appears on an advance
notice, states that the present writ petition is not maintainable on the ground
of laches as well as territorial jurisdiction. She states that the impugned
orders have been passed in Mumbai.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 24th
November, 2007 and/or dismissal of appeal on 6th February, 2008 and/or
dismissal of Review Petition on 26th May, 2008 and/or non release of
Signature Not Verified
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:09.12.2021
10:39:31
documents in April, 2017, he should have approached the High Court in
2017 itself.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Chairman/Managing Director,
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ram Gopal, 2020 SCC OnLine SC
101 has held that delay defeats equity and law favours the vigilant and not
the indolent. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to
proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India,
nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable
lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate
laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts
naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary
jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and
allowed illegalities to fester. Fencesitters cannot be allowed to
barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and
vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere
opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there
are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be
enforced. In SS Balu v. State of Kerala, this Court observed thus:
"17. It is also well-settled principle of law that "delay defeats
equity". ...It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner
approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed
for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches
irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the
other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment."
17. Similarly, in Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India this Court
while considering the claim of candidates who, despite being
higher in merit, exercised their right to parity much after those
who were though lower in merit but were diligently agitating their
rights, this Court observed that:
"27. ...It becomes an obligation to take into consideration
the balance of justice or injustice in entertaining the petition
or declining it on the ground of delay and laches. It is a
Signature Not Verified
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:09.12.2021
10:39:31
matter of great significance that at one point of time equity
that existed in favour of one melts into total insignificance
and paves the path of extinction with the passage of time."
9. It has also been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that repeated
representations by the petitioner would not extend the time period to file the
writ petition.
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
DECEMBER 06, 2021
KA
Signature Not Verified
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:09.12.2021
10:39:31
