Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satbir vs Haryana Power Generation Corporation ... on 30 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013873
CWP-2536-2025 1
132
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-2536-2025
Date of Decision:30.01.2025
SATBIR ......... Petitioner
Versus
HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD AND
OTHERS
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Dr. D.S. Chahal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. AG, Haryana
for the respondents.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to
consider his daughter-in-law for job in Rajiv Gandhi Thermal Power
Plant, Khedar.
2. The State of Haryana in 1984 declared a policy with respect
to acquisition of land. As per said policy, the owners/family members of
owners of the land were entitled to job in case of acquisition of their land.
The land of the petitioner has been acquired in 1998 by Haryana Vidyut
Prasaran Nigam Limited (for short 'HVPNL') and was then transferred to
Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (for short 'HPGCL') in
July' 2009 for establishment of Rajiv Gandhi Thermal Power Project in
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013873
Khedar, Hisar. On 21.07.2011 Chief Minister approved special scheme of
employment to those individuals whose land measuring two acre or more
was acquired. Collective share of the land acquired from petitioner's
family comes out to be more than two acres. None of the family
member's name was reflected in the list of land oustees.
3. Mr. Dr. D.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has made representation dated 20.11.2024 before respondents
claiming his case for employment.
4. A period of more than 28 years from the date of acquisition
of land has passed away. This Court, at this belated stage, especially
when there is no reasonable explanation for delay of more than two
decades, cannot ask the State or its instrumentality to consider claim of
petitioner for employment. The petitioner and his family members, as per
their wisdom remained silent for quite a long time, possibly due to their
disentitlement and at this belated stage they want to take advantage in one
or another way.
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.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013873
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 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 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 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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013873
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."
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013873
7. Applying the aforesaid judgment, this Court finds no
explanation for delay in the instant case. The present petition deserves to
be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and accordingly
dismissed.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
30.01.2025
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
