[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 24 December, 2025
`
CWP-39235-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
116 CWP-39235-2025
Date of Decision: 24.12.2025
Baldev Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: - Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of: -
i. order dated 08.09.1998 whereby he was dismissed
from service;
ii. order dated 17.10.2013 whereby his appeal was
dismissed;
iii. order dated 10.03.2016 whereby his mercy petition
was dismissed; and
iv. order dated 09.11.2023 whereby his application for
reconsideration was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was enrolled as Constable on 06.08.1993. The
respondent initiated departmental inquiry against him alleging that he had
produced forged matriculation certificate at the time of his enrolment. He
came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.09.1998. He preferred an appeal
1 of 5
`
which came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.10.2013 passed by Director
General of Police. Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jalandhar vide
judgment dated 07.07.2010 acquitted him from criminal charge. The State
Government filed appeal against the judgment of acquittal before the
Appellate Court. Learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment dated
18.08.2012 dismissed the appeal. As the petitioner was acquitted by
Criminal Court, he preferred petition before State Government which was
dismissed vide order dated 10.03.2016.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court in 2025 and is
assailing orders whereby he was dismissed from service. The dismissal order
was passed on 08.09.1998. The Appellate Authority rejected his appeal prior
to acquittal in 2013 and after acquittal in 2016. He was acquitted in July'
2010 and appeal preferred by State Government was dismissed in 2012. He
was supposed to approach this Court within reasonable period of time.
4. On being asked reason of delay, learned counsel for the
petitioner could not advance any plausible reason for inordinate delay in
approaching this Court.
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, 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
2 of 5
`
preferred. State cannot deprive vested right because of a non-deliberate
delay.
6. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court recently in Mrinmoy
Maity v. 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 considerable
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
nonsuited 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
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.
3 of 5
`
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,
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. There is no explanation for delay. If petitioner was aggrieved,
he was bound to assail the orders within a reasonable period. No limitation
has been prescribed for filing writ petition, however, litigants are not free to
approach High Court as per their whims and convenience. The petitioner by
4 of 5
`
his act and conduct acquiesced action of the respondent and at this belated
stage, want to make hay while the sun shines. Case of the petitioner is badly
hit by doctrine of delay and laches.
8. In the wake of afore-cited judgment and considering inordinate
delay on the part of petitioner, this Court does not find it appropriate to
invoke its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. The present petition deserves to
be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
24.12.2025
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
