1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI Writ Petition No.201630/2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN: [ENTITY] S/o Hussain Sab Aged about 58 years Occ: Daily wage employee R/o Lingasugur Tq. Lingasugur & Dist. Raichur Petitioner (By Sri [ENTITY], Advocate) AND: 1. The [ENTITY] Through its Secretary to the Department of Panchayat Raj M.S. Building Bangalore - 01 2. The [ENTITY] 3. The [ENTITY] 4. The [ENTITY] 5. The [ENTITY] 6. The [ENTITY] Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 6 to consider the grievance of the petitioner for continuity of his services on daily wage basis by considering the representation dated 31.05.2005 and 04.04.2005 as at Annexure-E and E1 within such specified time as this court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following: ORDER
In the instant petition petitioner has sought for the following relief:
"Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 6 to consider the grievance of the petitioner for continuity of his services on daily wage basis by considering the representation dated 31.05.2005 and 04.04.2005 as at Annexure-E and E1 within such specified time as this court deems fit in the circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is still continuing in service on contract basis. Petitioner's grievance is with reference to Annexure-E1 wherein, in the subject it is stated that he should be continued as daily wager on continue basis in the office of the Sub-division, Zilla Panchayat Engineering Lingasugur. Grievance of the petitioner does not survive on the score that petitioner is stated to have continued even to this day. That apart relief sought for in the present petition is with reference to cause of action accrued on 04.04.2005 whereas the present petition is filed in June, 2018. Therefore, on the ground of delay and laches writ petition is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], wherein the Supreme Court has elaborately considered under what circumstances writ petition could be entertained. One of the issue is delay and laches. Extract of the decision reads as under:
"20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage from [PRECEDENT], wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under [SECTION] of the [ACT], has expressed thus;-
"The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under [SECTION] is duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law ; and host of other factors."
21. In this regard reference to a passage from Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. Through its [PRECEDENT]. would be apposite;-
"Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party".
After so stating the Court after referring to the authority in [PRECEDENT] restated the principle articulated in earlier pronouncements, which is to the following effect;-
"the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction."
3. In view of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, present petition stands dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
JUDGE swk Ct : RRJ