Anand Kumar Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6892 MP

     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
                   (Division Bench)


                       W.A. No.983 of 2021

                     Anand Kumar Tripathi
                             -Versus-
                    The State of M.P. and Ors.

                                --
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, Advocate with Shri Vikas Mishra, Advocate for
the appellant.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
_______________________________________________________
CORAM :
        Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice.
       Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.

       [Hearing convened through virtual/physical modes]

                         JUDGMENT

(Jabalpur, dtd.27.10.2021)

Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-

The instant intra-court appeal has been filed under

Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand

Nyaypeeth to Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the

order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.9361 of 2021,

dated 13-9-2021, whereby the writ petition preferred by the

appellant has been dismissed.

2. The appellant has filed the writ petition in the year 2021,

seeking a direction that the appellant was regularized from 19-5-

2000, i.e. date when his juniors were regularized. It is contended

that order of regularization of the appellant was issued on 26-4-

2005, whereas his juniors were regularized on 19-5-2000.

3. The prayer was opposed by the respondents/State on the

ground of delay and laches. The writ petition was dismissed by the

learned Single Judge on account of delay of 16 years in preferring

the writ petition. The order of regularization of the appellant was

issued on 26-4-2005, whereas the writ petition seeking his

regularization from the date his juniors were regularized, has been

filed in the year 2021.

4. The explanation for delay given by the appellant is that

he had submitted a representation to the respondents-authorities on

his repatriation, but the same was not considered. He was

repatriated in the year 2014 and thereafter he had filed the

representation. It is vehemently argued that the appellant had

submitted various representations to the authorities concerned, but

the same were not considered and decided by them.

5. The learned Single Judge, appreciating the facts and

circumstances of the case in proper perspective, has observed that

even if it is assumed that what the petitioner-appellant is saying, is

correct, then also after 2014 the appellant has not taken any action to

file a writ petition before this Court and he has approached this

Court for the first time, in the year 2021 after a period of 16 years.

Therefore, filing of repeated representations to the respondents will

not give any cause of action to the appellant.

6. In the conspectus of the situation, we find that the

appellant has failed to give any proper explanation for delay in filing

the writ petition. We do not perceive any error or illegality in the

impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, in not

entertaining the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. As

as a logical corollary, the present intra-court appeal also fails.

7. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being sans substratum, is

dismissed without any order as costs.

        (Ravi Malimath)                              (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
          Chief Justice                                      Judge


ac.

     Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI
     Date: 2021.10.30 16:57:15 +05'30'