Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 23 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054632
CWP-8934-2024 1 2024:PHHC:054632
123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-8934-2024
Date of Decision:23.04.2024
MANDEEP SINGH ......... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate with
Mr. Sumit Bhardwaj, Advocate,
Ms. Khushi Praduman, Advocate &
Ms. Ashmeen, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to grant 15
marks as his height is 183 cm.
2. This is second round of litigation. The petitioner on the
earlier occasion preferred Civil Writ Petition No.12832 of 2018 assailing
selection of different candidates as Constables. This Court vide order
dated 05.07.2021 decided a bunch of 209 petitions including Civil Writ
Petition No.12832 of 2018 of the present petitioner. The petitioner in the
previous round of litigation was disputing measurement of his height.
This issue was also raised by other petitioners. This Court in Para 34 of
the judgment asked the State to re-measure height of all the candidates
who are aggrieved with their earlier measurement. Para 34 of the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054632
CWP-8934-2024 2 2024:PHHC:054632
judgment dated 05.07.2021 is reproduced as below:
"34. It is, however, made clear that this one time liberty/
indulgence of remeasurement of height across board is being
granted in view of the concession/ stand taken by the State in
its Review Application, that in order to mitigate the
grievance a one time exercise can be carried out qua those,
who are aggrieved against measurement of their height."
3. The respondent concededly re-measured height of the
petitioner and he was not declared successful candidate. He on
09.03.2022 approached Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and
Research (for short 'PGIMER'), Chandigarh. The PGIMER measured his
height as 183 cm. The petitioner served upon respondent legal notice
dated 04.04.2024 (Annexure P-4) seeking appointment on the ground that
his actual height is 183 cm whereas respondent has wrongly measured
181.8 cm.
4. From the perusal of record, it is evident that this Court vide
order dated 05.07.2021 directed the respondent to re-measure height of
the petitioner. The respondent in compliance of orders of this Court re-
measured his height. He claims that respondent did not communicate him
outcome of remeasurement. It is interesting to note that petitioner
remained silent from July' 2021 to March' 2024 and all of sudden
approached PGIMER for measurement of his height. PGIMER as per
Annexure P-2 in the OPD has measured his height. The report of
PGIMER nowhere indicates that height of petitioner was measured with
Stadiometer. He has served legal notice in April' 2024. By getting
measured height at PGIMER and serving legal notice in March-April'
2024, the petitioner has attempted to rekindle the lapsed cause of action.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054632
CWP-8934-2024 3 2024:PHHC:054632
5. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High
Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who
moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches.
Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that
the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be
condoned. Where illegality is manifest, it cannot be sustained on the sole
ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations
are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to
be preferred. State cannot deprive vested right because of a non-
deliberate delay.
6. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court recently in 'Mrinmoy
Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others' 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551 has
held that High Court ought to dismiss petition on the ground of delay and
laches where there is no explanation of delay. An applicant who
approaches the Court belatedly or in the other words sleeps over his
rights for a consideration period ought not to be granted the extraordinary
relief by writ Courts. Delay defeats equity. High Court may refuse to
invoke its writ jurisdiction if laxity on the part of applicant has allowed
the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made to rekindle the
lapsed cause of action. Multiple communications cannot create cause of
action. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as below:
"9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal
of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the
considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-
suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been
dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An
applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054632
CWP-8934-2024 4 2024:PHHC:054632
words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of
time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be
granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This
Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity.
Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born
in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a
given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its
extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to
assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away
and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed
cause of action.
10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care and
caution. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching
the writ court is explained which would appeal to the
conscience of the court, in such circumstances it cannot be
gainsaid by the contesting party that for all times to come
the delay is not to be condoned. There may be myriad
circumstances which gives rise to the invoking of the
extraordinary jurisdiction and it all depends on facts and
circumstances of each case, same cannot be described in a
straight jacket formula with mathematical precision. The
ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ court depends
upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the
facts have travelled.
11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that no
fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the
extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has
to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has
been invoked and even submitting of memorials would not
revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of
action which has had a natural death. In such circumstances
on the ground of delay and latches alone, the appeal ought
to be dismissed or the applicant ought to be non-suited. If it
is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches,
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054632
CWP-8934-2024 5 2024:PHHC:054632
the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole
ground itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge
in permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his
own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver of
fundamental right but while exercising discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will have to
necessarily take into consideration the delay and latches on
the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court."
7. Applying the aforesaid judgment, this Court finds no
explanation for delay in the instant case. The petitioner was re-measured
in 2021 and he opted to remain silent till March' 2024. By serving legal
notice, he has attempted to revive lapsed cause of action. The present
petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and
accordingly dismissed.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
23.04.2024
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
