Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dwarka Prasad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 January, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2136
1 WP-41385-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 28th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 41385 of 2024
DWARKA PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Jain, 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 12.04.2016 and 06.09.2016, whereby, the
services of the petitioner have been terminated without holding any inquiry
and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent/state argued that the petition
suffers from delay and latches.
Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in column 4
of the writ petition, the petitioner has explained the delay and latches.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the
objection, this court finds that the column 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner
has not given any plausible reason for the delay and latches of 9 years delay
in filing the writ petition. It is mentioned that the petitioner was given
repeated assurance of the respondents to do the needful and therefore, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2136
2 WP-41385-2024
petitioner was running from pillar to polls for redressal of his grievance. In
support of his submission, there is no material.
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2136
3 WP-41385-2024
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 and in the case of Surjeet Singh Sahani Vs. State of UP and Ors
reported in (2022) 15 SCC 536.
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
years has not been explained by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
