A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati Ors

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thd circumstancgs staled in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court lnay be pleased to issue an erder or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in refusing to change the name of nominqq of original land oustee vide Memo Nd.811441912024, 811441812024, d1.23.01 .2025 and 81151712024, d| 18 05.2024, as arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable, non exercise of power, discriminatory, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Article 14, 16,21 of Constitution of lndia and to set aside the said proceedings, and to issue a direction to the Respondent No.3 to issue land oustee nominee certificate to the petitioners, in the interest of justice lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition un(l(rT :rection 151 CPC praying that in the circtlnrstirnces stated in the affidavit filed in s pport of the petition, the High court rnay [,3 prleased to grant interim ordet drrectin, thq respOnddgrt no.3 to Consider the cases; ol the petitioners of original land ouslee or awardee' for granting land c,L s :',t-' certificate-A-s. l9.Ti.!99 deh"orse'thL impr-rplr,B J \ilemo Nos B 1i44 1 912 024 ' 811441812024 , dt )-3 01 2025 and during the pendency qf.writ petitior, irr the interest of 91t517tZO24, clt.iB 0 justice ';2Q24, Counsgl for the Peti'ioners: SRl. B MAHENQER RED0Y gounsel for the Resrrondent Nos.1 tp 3: QR! L. RAVINQER AGP t'OR REVENUE Counsel fot the R€s )ondgnt NO.4l Uls' G' SllpHA SC FgR NTPCL Counsel fo1 the Fe srrondent No.s; gP FOB LABOUR The Cqurt mgde the fol!914ringr OBPEE + HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY ORDER: UIRIT PE"TITION l{o.1O173 of 2025 This Writ petition is filed praying this Court to declare the action of respondent No.3 in refusing to change the name of the nominee of the original land oustees uide Memo Nos.Bl /4419 / 2024, 81 /4418/2024, dated 23.o1.2o2s arrd Bt/StZ/2024, dated 18.05.2O24, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 27 of the Constitution of India and consequently, prayed for . other appropriate reliefs

2. It is stated that the ancestral properties of the petitioners were acquired by the Government in the year 1g7g-go for establishment of National Thermal power Corporation (NTpC) uide Award No.B/a1a/29_2 and as per rhe policy, the NTpC agreed to provide some Junior Mazdoor posts exclusively to the eligible land.outstees or their nominees. It is further stated that the petitioners, who are the nominees of the original land oustees, have submitted applications, dated 31.12.2024, which \ wqre rejected by respondent No.3 stating that as per the instructions urde Government Memo No. 14994/LAR_2/gO/2, dated 03.07. 1990 and reference of CCLA No.c3/1925/90, dated ** 2 CVBR, J W: i0173 2025 2O.O6.79ctO,I t has no authority to change the norn:ne e ol the land oustce:; r [ter 36 years and issued the impu5lncd orders' Challenei:g I r I same, the present writ petition is hled

3. CcrL:;i:1, : t:<l the submissions of the learned courrse l for the petitioners; Pleader fcr i'i L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Govlrrnment l,::venue appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3; Ms.G.Suchir. respondcnL I learned Standing Counsel appearrng for r,4 and learned Government Pleader br Labour appearing f, rt ,:spondent No.5 and with their cons€nt, l.his writ petition :si be: 1; disposed of at the admission stage. 4 . Th r' c,:- l:rs relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners :n \\/.P.Nos.24886 of 2021,31630 of ZOl 1 anl,27927 of 2013 ar: r t applicable to the facts and circumslarc:s of the present ca -s (l r ,.s it is settled principle of law that h c llersons, who are ltitr :lg any right, have to take immediatr: r'rteps by approa<:hi;r,g Itre competent authorities for redressal of their grievance s . 7/ ., CVBR, J Wp l0l73 _2025

5. The Hon'b1e Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue relating to undue delay ald laches, in the case of State of Maharashtra as. Digambart, observed as uflder: "A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati & Ors. [1969 (i) SCR 808], reiterated the said principle of laches or undue delay as that which applied in exercise of power by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution- Therefore, where a High Court in exercise of its power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution issues a direction, order or writ for granting retief to a person including a citizen without considering his disentitlement fol such relief due to his blame- worthy conduct of undue delay or laches in claiming the same, such a direction, order or writ becomes unsustainable as that not made judiciously and reasonably in exercise oI its sound judicial discretion, but as that made arbitrarily. Thus, when the writ petitioner (respondent here) was guilty of laches or undue delay in approaching the High Court, the principle of laches or undue delay adverted to above, disentitled the writ petitioner (respondent here) for discretionary relief under Article 226 of t}re Constitution from the High Court, particularly, when virtually no attempt had been made by the writ petitioner to explain his blame- worthy conduct of undue delay or laches. The High Court, therefore, was wholly wrong in grarting relief in relation to inquiring into the allegation and granting compensation for his land alleged to have been used for scarcity relief road works in the year 1977-72......." 'lrsesy swr rhr - I I 4 ,i,- CVBP.. J \\ p 1()173 2025

6. I r :'re case of Mrinong Mditg us. Chhan da Koleg and others.2,.fLe Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as urrder: '"1 Court time and again has held that dela1' d:fe.ts equily- ft: r,or laches is one of the factors which should te born in n:Lr rl by the High Court while exercising dlscreti()na ry powers urr lr Article 226 of tiire Constitution of India. [;'r a given case, t re Iigh Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinaq powers if Liu< 'on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed t 1r :'ause of action to drift away and attemp s 1re made s.r I :,: ctuently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action'

7. I: the instant case, as the petitioners llzLve approached the re sp rdent authorities to change the name of nominees of thc lan <l ' )ustees after a lapse of 36 years, this wr it petition is no1 rna rr t,Linable since the same is hopelessly bar ed by 1aw of limila,irr; and even if the petitioners are having any claims, they are rr()t ( '-1tled to change the name of the nomirre€s of the land ous[(]oti !1ence, the writ petition filed is miscorLce ived and the sam c ir; i,,Lble to be dismissed on the sole grot rrrd of delay and lachr:s;. J1.)wever, it is needless to observe that, il tlre petitioners are hzL\ il libt:r;-r'r 1 i any documents in support of their clzLirr, they are at , take appropriate steps in accordance with law by appr,l1 ll rrg the competent civil Court. r12c'1,t11<r I 506 5 CVBR, J Wp_10173_2025 8 Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed. There shali be no order as to costs 9 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSI TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER II To, 'l . One CC to SRl. B MAHENDER REDDY Advocate I 2. One CC to Ms G. SUDHA SC FOR NTPCL [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana

4. Two CCs to GP for Labeur, High Courl for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies 5 KKS BS P,,.c.. I l i l HIGH COUR]- DATED:04l$,il2025 i ..' iE ) ,.ra-,,;\ N >tl ;'_ | ;: i, ,,/ '/ { ,l 2 7 i,14" 2[r ? I E.q nr r :rrtJ\- D :37 ORDER WP.No.10173 at 2025 DISMISSING ''HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CC STS 0t^t, >r[ s\x