Bal Bahadur Gurung vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3002 Gua

                                                                               Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010151932021




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/4912/2021

            BAL BAHADUR GURUNG
            S/O LATE GANESH BAHADUR, VILL. JAUNA, P.O. KAUSANI, DIST.
            BAGESHWAR, UTTARAKHAND



            VERSUS

            THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS
            THROUGH THE SECY., MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI

            2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

             ASSAM RIFLES
             SHILLONG 793011

            3:THE COMMANDANT

             31 ASSAM RIFLES
             C/O 99 AP

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS. S B CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                             ORDER

Date : 22-11-2021

Heard Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that Page No.# 2/3

the petitioner was dismissed from service vide Order dated 18.08.1990, issued by the respondent No. 3. She submits that the dismissal order should be set aside, as the same has been issued in gross violation of the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

2. She also submits that the petitioner had approached the Uttarakhand High Court vide WPSS No. 1588/2007. However, the same was dismissed vide Order dated 17.05.2012, on the ground of delay and laches and also on the ground that the High Court of Uttarakhand had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

3. Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC submits that the petitioner suffers from delay and laches, as the petitioner had approached the Uttarakhand High Court 17 years after the dismissal order was issued and has approached this Court 9 (nine) years after the Uttarakhand High Court had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition. He submits that delay defeats equity and as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 852/2020, Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd & Ors. Vs. Ram Gopal, the writ petition should be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

5. The petitioner had been dismissed from service vide Order dated 18.08.1990. The petitioner thereafter approached the Uttarakhand High Court 17 years later, i.e. by way of WPSS No. 1588/2007. WPSS No. 1588/2007 was dismissed vide Order dated 17.05.2012, on the ground of delay and laches, and also due to the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Uttarakhand High Court.

6. 9 (nine) years after the Uttarakhand High Court had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court. On perusing the averments made in the writ petition, it is seen that the petitioner has not given any reason for the delay of 9 (nine) years in approaching this Court, after the Uttarakhand High Court had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition. As is clear, the petitioner wants to re-open a matter which had been decided 31 years earlier. In the case of Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd & Ors. Vs. Ram Gopal , Civil Appeal No. 852/2020, which was disposed of by a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court vide Judgment Page No.# 3/3

dated 30.01.2020, the Apex Court held that while limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Article 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. Fence- sitters 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.

7. In the case of SS Balu Vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 479, the Apex Court observed as follows:-

"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"

8. In the present case, the petitioner is not a fence-sitter and the petitioner is not trying to take advantage of a judgment that had been passed in respect of similarly situated persons. However, the import of the decisions mentioned above is to the effect that inordinate delays, which are unexplained, can be a ground for dismissal of a writ petition. As stated earlier, the petitioner has not given any reason for the inordinate delay in filing the present writ petition.

9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed due to delay and laches.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant