LPA No.237/2009 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 237/2009 & CM No. 7278-79/2009 JASWANT SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal, Advocate. versus NDPL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr. Diwakar Sinha Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL O R D E R % 19.05.2009 1. The present appeal arises out of the order of the learned single Judge dated 23rd March, 2009. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:- 2. The appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition) had sought for quashing of the order dated 5th April, 2002 passed by the erstwhile Delhi Vidhyut Board, whereby the penalty of reduction of pay by three stages with cumulative effect was imposed on the appellant as also quashing of order dated 20th January, 2005 of the respondent whereby an appeal filed by the appellant against the order of penalty was also dismissed. 3. The learned single Judge has rightly held that grant of writ LPA No.237/2009 Page 2 of 3 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary relief and in order to exercise the discretion in favour of a party, there should be no inordinate delay or latches. The learned single Judge has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Bhailal Bhai, AIR 1964 SC 1006. The learned single Judge observed in the impugned order that though the appeal of the appellant had been dismissed in January, 2005, the writ petition was filed only in 2009 thus entailing a delay of more than four years. The review petition, purported to have been filed by the appellant, had been filed only after the expiry of more than three years from the date of the disposal of the appeal. Therefore, the learned single Judge correctly came to the conclusion that the appellant was trying to rake up a stale claim which was hit by inordinate delay and latches. The learned single Judge also rightly held that there was no question of issuing a direction to the respondent to dispose of the review petition purported to have been filed in February, 2008 as the review petition itself had been filed after the expiry of more than three years. The learned single Judge also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in C. Jacob Vs. Directorate of Geology and Mining & Anr., (2008) 10 SCC 115, wherein the Apex Court has held that the Court should be circumspect in issuing directions to the Department for a fresh consideration of a stale claim as such a direction leads to the revival of the case to be considered on merits at subsequent stages. 4. As held by the Supreme Court in Harish Uppal vs. Union of LPA No.237/2009 Page 3 of 3 India, 1994 (Supp) 2 SCC 195, that the contention that because of latches no third party rights have intervened and that by granting relief no other persons rights are going to be effected is only one of the consideration which the court takes into account while determining whether a writ petition suffers from latches. It is a well settled policy of law that parties should pursue their rights and remedies promptly and should not sleep over their rights. That is the whole policy behind the Limitation Act and other rules of limitation. If they chose to sleep over their rights and remedies for an inordinately long time, the Court may well choose to decline to interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 22 6 of the Constitution of India. This is precisely what the learned single Judge has done. We cannot say that the learned single Judge was not entitled to say so in its discretion. 5. We find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of as well. CHIEF JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J. MAY 19, 2009 sb