Jharkhand High Court
State Of Jharkhand & Others vs Shiv Kumar Verma ..... Opp. Party on 23 January, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 10 of 2019
State of Jharkhand & Others ..... Petitioners
Versus
Shiv Kumar Verma ..... Opp. Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opp. Party :
---------
rd
Order No. 06/Dated: 23 January, 2024
1. The instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for
restoration of the Letter Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 414 of 2016.
2. The instant petition has been filed after delay of 387 days. The
petition is for restoration of Letters Patent Appeal and as such, this
Court has given its view that in the matter of restoration of L.P.A., the
limitation will not come in the way, since, the Court is exercising the
power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but in
the said order, we have considered the applicability of the principle of
delay and laches. On the principle that while exercising the power
conferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the conduct of
the litigant concerned is required to be seen.
3. The law will settle that even approaching the court of equity
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same is to be
considered on the basis of the applicability of the principle of delay
and laches, reason being that the Court of equity is not made for loath
litigants.
4. The aforesaid principle is on the basis of the premise that the
writ Court being the court of equity, is not available for the loath
litigants who will approach to the Court whenever the same is found
to be convenient for such litigants, reference in this regard may be
made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh & Ors., [(2007) 9
SCC 278] in particular paragraph 17, which is quoted hereunder as:
17. Although, there is no period of limitation
provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, writ petition
should be filed within a reasonable time. (See Lipton
India Ltd. v. Union of India).
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Nandlal
Jaiswal & Ors [AIR 1987 SC 251] has observed that the power of the
High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the
Constitution is discretionary and if there is inordinate delay on the
part of the petitioner in filing the writ petition and such delay is not
satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to interfere and
grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Emphasis was laid down
on the principle of delay and laches stating that the High Court does
not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy
under the writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and
inconvenience in bringing the justice.
6. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly
brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation
offered and the acceptability of the same. The Court should bear in
mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction.
As a constitutional Court, it has a duty to protect the rights of the
citizens but simultaneously, it is to keep itself alive to the primary
principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason,
approaches the Court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would
be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage
should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of
equity.
7. This Court considering the aforesaid settled position and
coming back to the interlocutory application has not found any
justifiable reason by explaining the inordinate delay in filing the
petition, rather, the movement of file from one table to another, has
been shown. Hence, there is no reason assigned said to be justifiable
and sufficient to accept the delay in filing the instant Civil
Miscellaneous Petition.
8. Accordingly, the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition,
according to our considered view, is not fit to be allowed and as such,
the same is dismissed. Consequently, I.A. No. 201 of 2019 stands
dismissed.
9. Pending Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sunil/
