Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chote Lal Upadhyaya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3372
1 WP-29291-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 23rd OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 29291 of 2023
CHOTE LAL UPADHYAYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Neeraj Jain - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Jubin Prasad - Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.
ORDER
By way of this petition, the petitioners seeking a relief for
implemention of the order 03.02.2003 passed by the respondents/authorities
regarding classification of daily rate employees on completion of 240 days
service period.
The petitioners have admitted the fact that benefit of policy issued by
the State Government dated 07.10.2016 has already been extended to them,
however, they make a prayer that a mandamus be issued directing the
authorities to comply with the order dated 03.02.2003. But the fact remains
that the said order was passed on February, 2003. The petitioners have
chosen to sleep over their rights for a considerable period without even
representing the authorities for the same. The benefit of policy dated
07.10.2016 has already been accepted by them. In absence of any
explanation for such delay caused in approaching the Court or the authorities
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3372
2 WP-29291-2023
asking for implementation of the order 03.02.2003, no relief can be extended
to the petitioners.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa & Anr. vs.
Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 has opined as under:-
"54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a
petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case
the petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the
relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot
furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot
wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment
in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court
within a reasonable time."
A Division Bench of this Court in Focus Energy Ltd. (M/s) vs
Government of India, (DB) reported in I.L.R. (2011) M.P. 53 relying upon
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :
"10. Thus, facts stated supra leads to irresistible conclusion that
appellant is guilty of delay and laches. Its conduct disentitles it to
any relief. In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and
Others, AIR 2007 SC 1365 the Supreme Court has held that delay
and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable
jurisdiction. In Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder
Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48 the Supreme Court has observed that
discretionary relief can be provided to one who has not by his act
or conduct given a go-bye to his rights. Equity favours a vigilant
rather than an indolent litigant. In the State of Haryana v. Aravali
Khanij Udyog, (2008) 1 SCC 663 it has been held that where third
party rights are created, the High Court should not interfere.
Similarly, in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra) it has been held
that the Court exercising public law jurisdiction does not
encourage agitation of stale claims where the right of third parties
crystallizes in the interregnum."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd.
vs K. Thangappan reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322 has held as follows:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3372
3 WP-29291-2023
"6. Delay or laches 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 Prashad v.
Chief Controller of Imports and Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185 : AIR
1970 SC 769] . Of course, the discretion has to be exercised
judicially and reasonably.
7. What was stated in this regard by Sir Barnes Peacock in
Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd [(1874) 5 PC
221 : 22 WR 492] (PC at p. 239) was approved by this Court in
Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher [AIR 1967 SC 1450] and
Maharashtra SRTC v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service
[(1969) 1 SCR 808 : AIR 1969 SC 329] . Sir Barnes had stated:
"Now, the doctrine of laches in courts of equity is not an arbitrary or a technical
doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy either because the
party has, by his conduct done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a
waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has though perhaps not waiving
that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable
to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases,
lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against
relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of
course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitation, the validity of that
defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances
always important in such cases are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts
done during the interval which might affect either party and cause a balance of
justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as it relates to the
remedy."
It is further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok
Kumar vs District Magistrate, Basti reported in (2012) 3 SCC 311 that :-
"10. ... It is time and again, stated that a party who has slept over
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3372
4 WP-29291-2023
his right since is not entitled to the discretionary relief of the High
Court."
Under these circumstances, as there is substantial delay in approaching
the Court asking for implementation of the order dated 03.02.2003 passed by
the authorities, coupled with the fact that there is no explanation for the
delay, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
