Madhya Pradesh High Court
Irfan Saiyed vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 January, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:107
1 WP-40744-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 6 th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 40744 of 2024
IRFAN SAIYED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms.Pranjali Yajurvedi, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India challenging the order dated 13.05.2014 and 23.06.2015, whereby, the
services of the petitioner have been terminated.
On being confronted with the point of delay and latches in filing the
writ petition after about 9 years, learned counsel for the petitioner argued and
referred clause 4 of the petitioner that since the orders are without
jurisdiction and nullity therefore, the question of delay would not come into
his way.
In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment in
the case of Nagar Palika Nigam and Another Vs. Hemant Kumar and
Anorther reported in 2014 (2) MPLJ 214 .
Learned counsel for the respondent/state vehemently argued that the
petition suffers from delay and latches and there is no explanation for such
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:107
2 WP-40744-2024
huge delay and latches. The petition was filed after a delay of more than 9
years and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the
petitioner has filed this petition in the year 2024 challenging the orders dated
13.05.2014 and 23.06.2015, whereby, his services have been terminated after
the lapse of more than 9 years. There is no explanation to the delay in filing
the said writ petition. In clause 4 regarding delay petition of the writ, the
petitioner has stated that since the impugned orders are without jurisdiction
and nullity, therefore, the question of delay and latches would not be
attracted in the present case.
This court does not find any merit in the contention of the counsel for
the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the order of termination on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction but there is no explanation for delay of about 9
years in filing the present petition.
In the case of Karnataka Power Corpon. Ltd. Vs. K. Thangappan
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322 , the Apex Court in para no.6 has held that:-
"Delay or latches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind
by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the
High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there
is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to
assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and
other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even
where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the
discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prasad v. Chief
Controller of Imports and Exports (AIR 1970 SC 769). Of course,
the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably."
The same view has been followed in subsequent judgments in the case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:107
3 WP-40744-2024
of M.P. Ram Mohan Raja Vs. State of T.N. Reported in (2007) 9 SCC 78,
Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India reported in (2007) 9 SCC 274, U.P. Jal Nigam
Vs. Jaswant Singh reported in (2006) 11 SCC 464, Jagdish Lal Vs. State of
Haryana reported in (1997) 6 SCC 538, NDMC Vs. Pan Singh reported in
(2007) 9 SCC 278, State of Orissa vy. Pyarimohan Amantaray reported in
(1977) 3 SCC 396, State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik reported in (1976)
3 SCC 579, BSNL v. Ghanshyam Dass reported in (2011) 4 SCC 374,
Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of J&K reported in (2009) 15 SCC 321, P.S.
Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of T.N. reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152, of
Administrator of Union Territory of Daman and Diu and others v. R.D.
Valand reported in 1995 Supp (4) 593, State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan
Singh Bhandari reported in (2013) 12 SCC 179, C. Jacob v. Director of
Geology and Mining reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115, Union of India v. M.K.
Sarkar reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59, T.N. v. Seshachalam reported in (2007)
10 SCC 137, Union of India and Ors. Vs. Chaman Rana reported in (2018) 5
SCC 798.
The judgment relied by the counsel for the petitioner does not render
any assistance to the present case. The said case was dealing with a decree
passed by the Civil Court and the Apex Court held in that context that the
jurisdiction of the court passing a decree can be raised even at the appellate
stage. The said judgment does not relate to the service matters. The order of
removal from service cannot be held to be a recurring cause of action.
In view of the facts and the law enunciated by the Apex court, the
petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches as the delay of 9
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:107
4 WP-40744-2024
years has not been explained by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
It is made clear that this order would not affect the claim of the
petitioner regarding pension.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
