AH? A\ ?ETETEQ\A\ z Gum‘w‘qij Siag’n 33am} agef; zfgedt M "vem‘ $0“ 0§ E’almanané Ouumanon Leumu Pdtwmx P F NO 41 x jeside 1? of “Awe Devvacn «ah 212mg a, D.Lsmct Raigalil (Clma‘thsgazh) VERSUS RES?ON})ENTS : 1. gtlia 0* Chmtmgxh. Lam‘c-O': ¢he Sec Katy; D pavmevt of Revenua Dad; Ixmvan Smwh B11 Wan, Rciiajnf \u Ct] The pow Em Rzuuzu uhnmfi E‘Q » " i‘ ”‘ me SM) Dmm) M31 O‘i‘lcez §mm0a1h Dim Rqwaa {C G ‘NRET PETEEYFN 'DHR ARTICLnq 226/727 OF THE CONSTITLTEON ‘9 {\DL‘ §B: iimi Me om baiish K. Agniha€r§‘ $1 AJ\ )U m 'ioep \41A. .‘ é‘recaie fox ft pJQmcm" Arm t Dukéy i) mil av‘vef ferme §i(1xe,1aa§§011rle* 9m}? {@RAL) \Pa¢§~& m: “4m (32W 91° 71mg: 2W9) E'Eeard. 2. Leamed “ 1 Ji agp 1mg for mg patitionet" Submits tha‘a the peti‘aonai‘ was anpeimed as §3atwari o Q {‘6 196x, ”mu w’i 1653 11 1‘: sari-ice (m aiiamiag Ehe aga oi” éxupéMmmaiiGm 0a 3{}.1G.29{}‘2. Er; ihe course of service; the pei§€iomr C‘iid 110i mama any agap‘iia:at‘ionQ‘egresama‘xi(m for gram of bemfit of Ki‘aziaormaii 11cm either 12 yeam or 24 yeexs 0f Service. Miw retii meat fmn ; f0? 16 mdhmaa, ths p5€ii§0§ef z {Amlemire ?x’4-} an 14 20 5 fa: 1" ex: me g mam} P :\ 122G 5 31s gotbamh H M ; Fm mails mv awhea+mn ni g: a}: m Saii‘vise aaaaifla a3 mevidxaé under ciyculaa‘ L 1931 . April 5 . 20%! .A dunng . mg . sswwa , an; “heihq 111a pmjoma can be mm a re} f rm p“. 'eri, afuir ‘ms ‘Jl;ien1sm The peti‘iiomr has sEep‘ ami has :10 mkafl any stops at {ho agx‘opriato ti‘nze‘ The ysiiiiori was {11w P'eA u py‘od o: wow 4 wars on 2 {2:906 Without any expauatma f!» deEayV A; thiS stag), ‘ihe motion oamlm’ ho entea‘taiaaea o: a o coxmt fu‘siiy, ox} Lag. growqd of eyw ami seoonmy apmoprw‘ie “Ppmauoa mu ‘ws sawice iimo. x v; u L16 swvica, emcoydiag 10 kamsd cam p4 k) :9 (‘3 t II v The copy ofiha repa yea mmim Ca 6C1 § )La The qws‘iim men/w m {an Lag? 1s axto Whw i} g pe‘ii‘iioglar ‘ 1 mack :‘egai‘ewzita’iiom chmd Ac i emai 0* Gav f1? vi pm‘ U) over his 1‘1g11‘i nor Wu 11-31; moor: 4Am ‘ ’ . e : b). The Eaw 0n me principk of waiver an& acquiescence is W61} semgii thax, if i..,,€ parssn sleeps over his iighLs and is 110i vigilam of his rights zmd acquiesces with fae simatiom, h$ may not be emitled to the same reEief as wee granteéi ‘io other vigilant yersone. A Censii‘m‘iion Bemix of the Supreme Ceurt in Chamii‘a Bhuséaarx aim anotker vge The Bewzty Birecém‘ 9f Camaiis‘iaiien, Ema? Fragieeh {Regmmi} '- . ‘ Laei‘mew ami Gihex‘s, 1 abservai 4:;mat g: iioi‘x’aaéij" 1 fk quasiz‘an Maefher a peffz‘z‘ari under Ari. 226 of 31353 Comffragfiw? for {he issae oft: wrii ofcerfiora?‘z‘ fwd beenprgsem‘ed wifhom umiase deiay or ladies J’s <1 qyesiz‘onfor the Hfgk Calf? to decide ard fiais Caw‘z 'vzr‘ouizz" m9? z‘m‘ ‘i‘fem wiik §§3€ exercise ofiiee diseretiorr Offm Higi? COME. Fm‘iher, o‘ehe? Constitution Benc§ of the Skipt‘eme Coufi i1} §e§in§ra§1a£h Base ami @mers vs. The Emma Gi‘ Enéia ami geiieiez, obsefved as uncier : “31. But in so far 3e $he attack is based 03a fne 1952 Semeffiiy Ruies, ii must faii 0a another gm‘um‘i. The gmm‘aei beiag tha: i’hie petitioe under ’ meke 32 of ihe Constimtioa has beeii breughé about f1§iee11 years after :he i952 RuieS were 1n'0ni‘ta1gated and; efec‘i given to faem in the Seniomy List prepared on August 1, 3.953.. Leamec‘a. eotlm‘ei for the petitianers says {hat ih Coul'i' Ea» n0 discretion anal cmmat (iiamiss the petiiiou ramiex‘ AriicEe 32 0:1 ihe grmmé Thai i: has been brought aiier inm‘dhm‘te delav‘ J We we unabie to acesPi this con’ie'ntion. . 32. The §eamed counsei for ihe petitioaeis s€e0egiy urges ‘ihai the decision of this Come i1: ’, ?iiofcc§;and A/Iofieksand ’s case (sepia) needs rev§ew “at aiier care-fully seasideriag the matter? we re of ”the View thai 110 relief shenkl be given to petiiioners who; wiihouf: any reasemble expianatiem aeproaeh {hie Couft Liedei‘ A [A: UI a: 32 of the Coesiiimioe efier inerdizaa’ie de xe §1ighe3€ Com“; in this {and has been gi‘vee oiiginai ion i0 emertairi peiitiees uader Articie 32 e’f the Coes‘xituiioe. E‘L emild 110i Eiave beeii ihe imeniiml thai this {bum Weuw gc: :in‘m sia’xe demands afiee a iapse 0f years. it ie said ”thee. Aa‘tiele 32 is itse§f a gearameed rigii. SO it ie‘, but i: does aoi f0§1ow from this 111a: it was ‘ahe éntem‘iem of the Ceiastitutiee makere that éhig Court sheew diSeze‘cE all pri11c§p1es and gram relief m peii‘tiem fikc‘a aiie’f inerainaie de‘iayf’ i g ' h L J : U) A”? “1% 11 may aise ha misc“: im‘t the priaciple oil which ihe Cour: proceedg )n refusi11g re§iéfio the peiiiiozmr on gmugd of iaches arid de§ay is that ihe righis which have acsruad is oihefs 13y yeason of Ehe (“LekL-y if} Ema the miitim Sho‘uié not gee: ailoweé t0 be dismrbad unieas thaw h reasmmble éxplamaiéon for the aisiay. This principie wag smted i1: thc: failewing krms by Hidayattglaii; CJ. m Tiloic Cham! van HB. A/fwsia‘ {supra} : “The pafty claiming Fimdamemal Rigji‘ts mug‘; mow i113 Couri b§foye other rightg acme Late exisienca The actimx efcourtS Qaime‘t hag‘m imlocem yaziies if‘iheii’ righiS mmrgs by reasm} of delay 021 the par? of the parson moving the Couxt” in §¢aée 9f ME. Vs. Nanéiai", ii was observefx ihat mat m6 High Cem“: m exeraise of iis discretiom does not ordinarily assist iha tam}! and ”the iadaleni or 1,116 aaquiescen’i and ihe Eeihargic. Ifihai‘s is mm‘dinate (13%}? 013 ‘9": pzm of ‘iha peti’iio‘aar and gush {May is no? satisfactoa‘y exgalaimch t‘iw High Cami may declim 1’9 ixa‘x‘arvalw am}. giant religf m exerciix'e of i‘is writ juriSdiC‘iion. It was; aiso obSswad that if Wfii jui‘isdktiorl is exeg‘sised afixar unwascm&b§& daiajv', :t may have the effeci of ix§ic€é11g not 0n§y hardshi§ &11& inconveménca but alsa hxjugtice 0n ihii‘d géariiag. Whw writ jui‘igdiotion is imrakexiy imexphineé a‘eiay coupleti wiih the crsation of third mriy rights in $ha msantime i3 an imyortam facicr Whi :1 am waghs with the High Calm: in deciding wheiher or not to axerotsa such jurisctiotiom. The Supreme Comt it} UR Jai Ngam anti wet‘hm‘ vs. .Eeghwaat $‘333gtt ant} attothers, observeo as tmdei': “The gttegtioa of deiay and lackes has ”been examirted by this Court in a series of deoisioos am} taehes has ‘beet‘t ooxtsiéex‘ed to ‘oe an impmtant factor in exercise of the discreti'ooary reiief tméex' At'tiele 226 ofthe Coxtstitution.” lafjl Ymmo {Bahmiw‘kaw * Eamk; 13adxekaa~ v. State on Mahat'a Supreme Comt observed as tinder: “Dday or lacheg is one 0t” the factom which is to be borne in 2mm} by toe High Comt wheo they exercise their di$ctetionary oowers. In at; appropriate case the High Com“: may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is Such negligenee or omission on the pent ofthe appiicam to assert his right as teketa in conjunction with the iapSe oftime and other circmnstemoes, causes prejudice to the opposite party.” gm o F39 , . m ‘E uvunuu-n), ii (tom t soc 3-17 * (NR 1937 so 251) 5 (2006) 1'1 soc 464 009 (3) $C 487) um e M 3 lThe Suprgme {3mm in $r§di§§ Kama? Eingai ami mhem Vs. Staw a§ ‘yE’est' Bwgai ~ agaai ashsws A 7 where .he appaiiams ¢ toak 559 éaays m . apprmcnmg . . the Court, causing uilexplaimé mid ineréinate deiay, o‘oserved as Hilder : “We we una’nie to uphold the comemiori. It iS no doubt ime 3.121? ihere can be no waive-1‘ of fundamemal yight, But whiie exerc§$ng dismetionaxy jurisdiction undér Articias 32, 226, 227 at E36 9f :he Consiiimiom ihi$ Cami takgs imo accmmt cez'tain factws and one of sueh coasiéefatiom is deiay and lachas 011 ‘the pm‘i of tin? appiigam: in 21§3pmaching a wrii souri. 1i i3 well settlsd that gjower to issue a. wri? is discretionaxy Qne of ihsa gonads fer i‘e‘iiising feiiefs under Article 3‘2 61‘ 226 of the Comiimiioa is thafi the petiiionea‘ is guiky 0f Cielay and lashes. 57‘ Ifthe pei'itiener wams to invoke jurisdiction of a wréi smut he should some to the eouri at the earliest reasonabb‘ gossibie oppoituiiiiy. Inortiinate Cielay in makmg the motion for a. writ V 1i indeed ‘oe a good ground for reiilsieg to exeg‘cise such ctiseretiomi'y jux‘isdietioa. The oederiying object of thts priooioie is not to eoeourage agitation of stale Claims and exhume matters which have been disposed of or settied or Where the rights of L’iird par have acomeo in the meaotime (Vicie State of ME. v. Bhmiai Bhai, Moon Mills Ltd V. Inoustria] Couzt 2131-91 Bhoop Singh VA Uoion of India). This pi‘iooip1e appiies even n case of an mo‘iagement of fenoamentai rignt wide Tiioigchand Motiehand v. HE. MoosEii, Durga Frasad v, onief Controkier of impom & Exports and Rabiildx'anath Bose V. Uoion of l o o m ) “ Further, “There 1s o0 upper limit and there is no iower 1mm as to when a person can approach a court. The question is one of disemtion and Eks to be oeotéeo ofo t‘oe basie of facts before the couz’t A i epending 0o atzd Vatyiog from case to ease. It Win c‘eoe xi opoo What the breach of foodamentai i‘igE’at ax‘yi the remedy claimed are am? when aod'how the elay arose”. 12This Couit m Sim. Shasmhaie Ganohi‘ale. vs. State of {Johattiegarh e3; @tkerss or; 3-1-2097 observed that “Like Goose 0f ocfz‘oy; arose on 6—6-2995, 1%??48}? me cwomuoicaiion was 36m by flee Stare Govemmem‘i i0 {he (mfkw‘z'ties‘ ner may not fakeirf any Steps ever since Mi these petitions werefiled m December, 2006 em? Fer/gained Sara-J); and indoiem‘. This“ belaZed appmack wmdd cei‘taz'nly cottage fwrkishgz) am? mcomrem'ence to other Side.” for glam of revfs'ed pay-scale. The pa f (2009) 1 soc 768) ° WP (s) M7222 of 2096 t , : .. 'o 3,3.Ap§iymg Wei} saaieé principEes 0f iaw to ‘ghg facis of ihe case on hana‘; i‘na ga‘ziiéons‘r has no: effered my 5Xplanation for imréinate c’ieiay ané laches. The petitioner Ewpt quiet fer abou’i four yeaw and hag net takan aay sieps for i‘qe grisvance sough‘i: for in ihis yetiiion, exsspt iiliag of the regesema‘dom ‘Gefora the mgmndem audiov’x‘iies; 9&6? retiz‘miant. 151.fm“ the raamnsé mentioaed hersimbeve? ha ystitim: i3 Eab‘ia m be ami is accordingly (Esmigseé. Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ ‘ Judge w zesm1 of / 5' sci/- J