Madhya Pradesh High Court
Govind Kol vs Sachiv on 21 March, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13999
1 WP-5753-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 21st OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5753 of 2025
GOVIND KOL
Versus
SACHIV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ram Babu Pandey - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-
"1. यह क यािचकताकता माननीय यायालय के सम इस बाव यह
यािचका तुत कर रहा है क उपरो द तावेज एवं यािचकाकता क
आिथक थित को दे खते हुए तथा अनावेदकगणो के ारा यािचकाकता
के साथ जस कार अवैध प से िन कािसत कया गया है , उसे पुनः
बहाल कये जाने बावत ् यािचकाकता यह यािचका माननीय यायालय
के सम तुत कर रहा है ।"
2. It is pointed out that the petitioner was working as a muster roll
employee. His services has been terminated by the authorities. The petitioner
made repeated communications to the authorities, but of no consequence.
Therefore, this petition has been filed.
3. The record indicates that the services of the petitioner were terminated
in the year 2011. The petitioner has approached this Court for the first time in
the year 2025. There is no explanation for the delay in approaching the Court
as paragraph-4 of the writ petition is silent about the same. Even otherwise
document Annexure P-4 shows that an information was sought by the
petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which was already
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13999
2 WP-5753-2025
provided to the petitioner as has been informed to him vide letter dated
11.11.2021. Thereafter, also the petitioner has not approached this Court
within a reasonable time. As the petitioner was working as a muster roll
employee coupled with the fact that there is a delay of almost 15 years in
approaching the Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition on
the ground of delay and laches as there is no explanation for the same.
4. The law with respect to the sleeping litigant has been considered by
the Court in catena of cases. 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."
5. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13999
3 WP-5753-2025
crystallizes in the interregnum."
6. 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:
"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."
7. 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:13999
4 WP-5753-2025
his right since is not entitled to the discretionary relief of the High
Court."
8. If the aforesaid judgements are applied to the facts of the present it is
clear that the petitioner has slept over his right for a considerable period of
almost 15 years and the delay has not been explained by the petitioner. No
judgment is placed before this Court to substantiate the arguments of delay in
approaching this Court.
9. Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
THK
