The Allahabad High Court has made an important observation and advised Courts to refrain from entertaining Time Barred Cases unless delay is properly explained as the rights accrued to others cannot be allowed to be disturbed.
The single-judge bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan while dealing with writ of mandamus filed for direction to the State Govt to decide on the Representation made by the petitioner in within the stipulated period, noted that it is settled position of law that vested rights of the parties should not be disrupted at the instance of a person, who is a guilty of culpable negligence.
The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State is irresponsive on the Representation made by the petitioner in response to Show-Notice seeking reply as to why his services shouldn't be terminated on the ground that he has concealed the fact regarding pendency of the criminal case against him.
Both Standing Counsel and Counsel for the Respondent opposed the writ so filed on ground of limitation. It was submitted that the petitioner slept over his rights for more than twelve years but not even a single word has been mentioned in the present writ petition with regard to delay in filing same.
The Court referred to Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director Vs. Smt. Parden Oraon, 2021 Latest Caselaw 192 SC to observe that it is settled law that the person, who is not vigilant and dormant about his right, cannot be allowed to agitate.
The time-barred cases should not be entertained by Courts as the rights, which have accrued to others by reason of delay in approaching the Court, cannot be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. The vested rights of the parties should not be disrupted at the instance of a person, who is a guilty of culpable negligence, the Court noted.
"The Privy Council in General Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, AIR 1941 PC 6, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lectures 1932, wherein it has been said that "a law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on applicable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognised by law."
Condonation of Delay
The Court referred to N. Balakrishnan. Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, 1998 Latest Caselaw 459 SC, wherein the Court explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay.
"The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy."
High Court cannot ignore the delay and laches in approaching the writ court and there must be satisfactory explanation by the petitioner as how he could not come to the Court well in time, the Court said referring to Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh & ors.
The High Court should dismiss the writ petition on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay, the Court referred to The Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed & Ors, 2004 Latest Caselaw 222 SC
The writ was accordingly dismissed.
Read Order Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
