Hapna Hansda, aged about 34 years, S/O Parwat Hansda, R/O Baramara, Chakulia, P.O. & v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through Ministry of Home, Government of Jharkhand, having its
Case Details
1 LPA No.651/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.651 of 2022 ------ Hapna Hansda, aged about 34 years, S/O Parwat Hansda, R/O Baramara, Chakulia, P.O. & P.S. Baramara, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand …. …. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Ministry of Home, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. Director General of Police cum Inspector General of Police, State of Jharkhand, having its Office at Police Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), having its Office at Police Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, P.O. Jamshedpur Town, P.S. Mango, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum .... .... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR ------ For the Appellant For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV : Mr. Suman Marandi, AC to SC-IV ------ 03/Dated: 29.08.2023 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1914 of
Decision
2021, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches in approaching this 2 LPA No.651/2022 Court from the date of advertisement which was of the year, 2003. 2. It appears from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner claimed to be a successful candidate, but was not appointed and as such, writ petition was filed being W.P.(S) No.1356 of 2004 along with other similarly situated persons. 3. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.03.2004, whereby, the direction was given to the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur to consider the grievance of the petitioners in the light of the direction issued by the Home Secretary and the Director General of Police, Jharkhand. 4. It was observed therein that if the petitioners are found eligible in all respect for appointment, then appropriate order shall be passed for issuance of appointment letter in favour of the petitioners and specific time was also stipulated therein for completing the exercise within the period of two months. 5. It further appears that in spite of the direction passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 10.03.2004 while disposing of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1356 of 2004, there was no endeavour on the part of the petitioners. 6. The writ petitioner after lapse of 18 years from the date of issuance of advertisement, which was issued in the year 2003 being Advertisement No.01/2003, has filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1914 of 2021 for seeking therein direction for issuance of appointment letter in his favour on the ground that he was declared to be successful. 3 LPA No.651/2022 7. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the writ petition after lapse of 18 years. 8. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the delay is there on the ground that the appellant belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. 9. Serious objection has been raised on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the State that the writ petition since has been dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches and hence, merely because the appellant is the member of Scheduled Tribe category, the principle for entertaining the writ petition after inordinate delay which has been held to be impermissible, cannot be condoned. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the impugned order as also the fact available in the pleading. 11. The law is well settled that there is no applicability of the law of limitation in the writ proceeding but the principle of delay and laches is applicable in entertaining the writ petition. 12. Such principle is on the basis of the premise that the writ Court being the court of equity, is not available for the loath litigants who will approach to the Court whenever the same is found to be convenient for such litigants, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh & Ors., [(2007) 9 SCC 278] in particular paragraph 17, which is quoted hereunder as: 4 LPA No.651/2022 17. Although, there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. (See Lipton India Ltd. v. Union of India). 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors [AIR 1987 SC 251] has observed that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and if there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the writ petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to interfere and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Emphasis was laid down on the principle of delay and laches stating that the High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and inconvenience in bringing the justice. 14. In this context, further reference is made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Baljeet Singh (Dead) through Lrs. And Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others[(2019) 15 SCC 33] wherein, the land losers had approached the Court of law after inordinate delay seeking enhanced compensation which the Hon’ble Apex Court has refused to condone. 15. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph-7 has held as under:- “7. The matter requires examination from another aspect, viz., laches and delay. It is a very recognised principle of 5 LPA No.651/2022 jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Even when there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases, courts have coined the doctrine of laches and delay as well as doctrine of acquiescence and non- suited the litigants who approached the court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing the action after unreasonable delay. In those cases, where the period of limitation is prescribed within which the action is to be brought before the court, if the action is not brought within that prescribed period, the aggrieved party loses remedy and cannot enforce his legal right after the period of limitation is over, however, subject to the prayer for condonation of delay and if there is a justifiable explanation for bringing the action after the prescribed period of limitation is over and sufficient cause is shown, the court may condone the delay. Therefore, in a case where the period of limitation is prescribed and the action is not brought within the period of limitation and subsequently proceedings are initiated after the period of limitation along with the prayer for condonation of delay, in that case, the applicant has to make out a sufficient -9 - cause and justify the cause for delay with a proper explanation. It is not that in each and every case despite the sufficient cause is not shown and the delay is not properly explained, the court may condone the delay. To make out a case for condonation of delay, the applicant has to make out a sufficient cause/reason which prevented him in initiating the proceedings within the period of limitation. Otherwise, he will be accused of gross negligence. If the aggrieved party does not initiate the proceedings within the period of limitation without any sufficient cause, he can be denied the relief on the ground of unexplained laches and delay and on the presumption that such person has waived his right or acquiesced with 6 LPA No.651/2022 the order. These principles are based on the principles relatable to sound public policy that if a person does not exercise his right for a long time then such right is non- existent.” 16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The Court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional Court, it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously, it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the Court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. 17. Herein, the explanation has been sought to be given that the appellant/writ petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category but no such explanation was available before the writ Court. 18. But, even accepting the said fact that there was no explanation before the writ Court merely because the appellant is the member of the Scheduled Tribe which cannot be said to be a ground for entertaining the writ petition after inordinate delay of 18 years. 19. Herein, as per the admitted fact that the writ petitioner is seeking direction for issuance of appointment letter against the advertisement which was issued in the year 2003 by filing the writ 7 LPA No.651/2022 petition in the year 2021. 20. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the fact that the writ petition was filed after lapse of 18 years, has dismissed the writ petition. 21. This Court, on the basis of the law as has been referred hereinabove is of the view that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition on the ground of unexplained delay, which cannot be said to suffer from an error. 22. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Rohit/-N.A.F.R.