Manjur Hussain vs State Of J&K And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1320 j&K

                                                                Sr. No.60
        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU
                                              LPASW No. 38/2017
                                              IA No. 1/2017

Manjur Hussain                                   .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

                      Through: Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate with
                               Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.

                 Vs

State of J&K and others                                    ..... Respondent(s)

                      Through: Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE

                                  ORDER

21.10.2021

(Open Court)

Per:-Thakur-J

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the

judgment and order dated 21.10.2016, whereby the writ petition filed the

petitioner-appellant herein, challenging the order of termination dated

19.01.2007 was held to be barred by delay and laches. The Writ Court held that

the petitioner had failed to explain the delay of approximately three years in

approaching the Court from the date of termination till November 2009, when

the writ petition was filed before the High Court. The petition was, thus,

dismissed on account of delay and laches without going into the merits of the

case.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, stated that the

writ petition had been admitted to hearing on 01.02.2013 and further urged that

the same having been admitted to hearing, the petition could not have been

dismissed on account of delay and laches.

3. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court rendered in case

titled, "Abdul Gani Vs. Union of India and ors., reported in 2013 (2) JKJ

140", which is a judgment pronounced by one of us (Thakur-J) while sitting

singly.

4. On a perusal of the judgment (supra) and, in particular, para-11

thereof would reflect that reliance was also placed on a Division Bench

judgment of this Court rendered in case titled, "Bashir Ahmad Bhat Vs. State

of J&K", bearing LPA Nos. 138/1999 and 168/1999 decided on 03.08.2004, in

para-3 whereof, the Division Bench held as under:-

"......It is also the proposition of law that the delay and laches should be considered before admission of the writ petition. The petition has not been admitted subject to delay and laches, which were not pressed at the time of its admission. Therefore, the writ petition under such circumstances cannot be dismissed on account of delay and laches"

5. Be that as it may, we do not see any reason to disagree with the view

already taken by the Division Bench of this Court, which has relied upon and

refered to in Abdul Gani's case (supra), it also appears to us that the petition

was admitted to hearing on 01.02.2013 and as stated by the learned counsel for

the petitioner that since the admission was not subject to the issue of delay and

laches, it was not open to the Writ Court to dismiss the writ petition on that

account, especially, after the petition had been admitted.

6. Be that as it may, the judgment and order impugned is set aside. The

matter is remanded for re-consideration on merits.

7. Let the writ petition come up for hearing on 29.10.2021.

8. Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of along with connected IA.

                           (Puneet Gupta)            (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
                               Judge                        Judge
Jammu
21.10.2021
Ram Krishan


                                 Whether the order is speaking?        Yes/No
                                 Whether the order is reportable?      Yes/No