Jharkhand High Court
Police 298 Kanchan Rajwar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 September, 2024
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 4223 of 2024
----------
Police 298 Kanchan Rajwar, Aged About-40 Years, S/O Thakur Rajwar, R/O-Vill.-
Birni, P.O.-Birni, P.S.-Nawadih, Dist.-Bokaro, Posted at-JAP-5, Deoghar, P.O.-
Dahijor, P.S.-Mohanpur, Dist.-Deoghar, Jharkhand
............ Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Deputy Inspector General of JAP, P.O.&P.S-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi,
Jharkhand
3.The Commandant of Jharkhand Arms Police (JAP-5), P.O.-Dahijor, P.S.-
Mohanpur, Dist.-Deoghar
............ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C)-I
----------
02/ 27.09.2024 Heard the parties.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since
there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner, a direction be given
to avail the alternative remedy by preferring appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has objection if a direction is given
to the petitioner for preferring appeal.
By drawing attention of this Court towards order passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Chennai Metro Politan Water Supply & Swerage
Board and Ors. Vs. T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108,
learned counsel submits that the petitioner has raised his grievance after
long delay and as such this petition may be dismissed on the point of delay
and laches. Relevant para of the said judgment reads thus:-
"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. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal
but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for
the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity
and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic
norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second,
law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring
in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has
been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not
to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such
enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the
present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the
respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a
lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly
absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of
repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not
foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is
likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights
and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable
realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A
court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who
compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our
considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the
said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard
at the very threshold."
4. However, since the petitioner has prayed for time to file an appeal, this
Court in inclined to grant time to prefer appeal. If appeal is preferred within a
period of four weeks the same shall be disposed of after giving personal
hearing to the petitioner within a further time of three weeks.
5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
Rohit/-
