Karnataka High Court
Niranjana Lingu L vs The Managing Director on 5 March, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9217-DB
WA No. 3270 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 3270 OF 2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
NIRANJANA LINGU L
S/O LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
OCCUP: SHIFT ENGINEER (S.C.E)
THE MYSORE SUGAR COMPANY LTD.,
(CO. GENERATION)
SUGAR TOWN, MANDYA-571 402.
...APPELLANT
Digitally (BY SRI. J M UMESH MURTHY - ADVOCATE)
signed by
SUMATHY AND:
KANNAN
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
Location:
High Court MYSORE SUGAR COMPANY LTD.,
of Karnataka MY SUGAR BUILDING
J.C. WADEYER ROAD
BENGALURU-560 002.
2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
MYSORE SUGAR COMPANY LTD.,
SUGAR TOWN, MANDYA-571 402.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B S MANJUNATH - ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9217-DB
WA No. 3270 of 2016
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 32783/2015 (S-RES)
DATED 21/06/2016.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI .K .J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this writ appeal, the appellant has assailed the order
passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32783/2015 dated
21.06.2016 wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed the
writ petition on the ground of delay and laches in filing the
same.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents.
However, the counsel for the appellant remained absent on the
preceding three hearing dates. Even today, he remains absent.
3. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this
writ appeal are that, the appellant / Niranjana Lingu L was
appointed as a Shift Charge Engineer in the Mysore Sugar
Company Limited, vide Appointment Order dated 14.10.2006
vide Annexure-"A". His appointment was on contract basis for
a period of four years from the date of his reporting to duty. It
is the further case of the appellant that even after completion
of the contractual period of service, his tenure of appointment
NC: 2024:KHC:9217-DB
was extended subsequently and he was appointed in the
sanctioned post, which was approved by the Board of Directors
of the Company.
4. Subsequently in the month of September 2012, he was
discontinued from service. Posteriorly, he had submitted a
representation dated 03.02.2014 and so also on 21.01.2015
requesting the company to extend his services and for payment
of financial benefits for the period while he was illegally kept
out of employment. Since no reply was given to his
representations, the appellant approached this Court by filing
W.P.No.32783/2015. After considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge dismissed
the writ petition as stated supra. The validity of the said order
is under challenge in this appeal.
5. We have perused the documents made available before
us including the order passed in W.P.No.32783/2015. It is
admitted case of the appellant that he was appointed on
contract basis for a fixed period. Though the term of
appointment was subsequently extended, he was discontinued
from service with effect from September 2012. Hence, in such
a scenario, cause of action arose to the appellant to approach
NC: 2024:KHC:9217-DB
the Writ Court in the month of September 2012 itself. In spite
of the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ
petition only in the year 2015 i.e., after lapse of 3 years.
Hence, by considering the inordinate delay and laches in filing
the writ petition, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss
the writ petition.
6. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single
Judge, and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of CHAIRMAN / MANAGING
DIRECTOR, U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. VS.
RAM GOPAL (AIRONLINE 2020 SC 93), wherein in the said
judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has extensively
addressed the issue relating to limitation and has held thus: -
"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. Fence-
sitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for
their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens
NC: 2024:KHC:9217-DB
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."
If the case on hand is seen collocated to the decision of
the Apex Court in the above case, the same is squarely
applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, in our
considered view, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed
the writ petition and the said order does not call for any
interference by this Court.
7. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed as being
devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KS
