Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinder Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 5 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046140-FB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:046140-DB
(104) LPA-1932-2023
Decided on : 05.04.2024
Vinder Singh .......Appellant(s)
Versus
Union of India and others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present:- Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel
for the respondent-UOI.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-4830-LPA-2023
Application for condonation of delay of 49 days in re-filing the
appeal, is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application, duly
supported by affidavit of the counsel. Delay of 49 days in re-filing the appeal
is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
LPA-1932-2023 (O&M)
The present letters patent appeal which is patently barred by as
many as 1922 days is directed against the judgment of the learned Single
Judge dated 21.04.2018 passed in CWP No.9677 of 2018.
2. It is a classic case of delay, negligence and indolence on account
of the appellant. The initial writ petition was also barred having been filed
after 14 years, as the order dated 12.05.2004 (Annexure P-7) was under
challenge before the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitioner's case
of re-enlistment in service as per revised CISF Rules had been rejected. The
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046140-FB
learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition while placing reliance upon
the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. R.K.
Zalpuri and others, (2015) 155 SCC 602. In spite of that the present appeal
has been filed, which is again barred by 1922 days. The only reason for delay
was that counsel could not be engaged on account of shortage of funds. The
said explanation does not inspire any confidence, keeping in view that the
there is a well established system of free legal aid in the High Court. If the
appellant wanted to avail the facility of free legal aid, he could have done so.
3. Resultantly, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court
in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial
Development Corporation & another, (2010) 5 SCC 459, Esha
Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy & others, (2013) 12 SCC 649 and Office of the Chief Post Master
General and others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. And another, (2012) 3
SCC 563, we do not see any reason to consider the case on merits and also
keeping in view the fact that indulgence is not liable to be granted to such a
person who is grossly negligent and not interested in pursuing his remedy.
Resultantly, there is no merit in the present letters patent appeal
and both the appeal and application for condonation of delay stands dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
05.04.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
2 of 2
