-1 - .?^Jf<ry2r- liah ^ourt^ In the Honble High Courf of Chhattishaarh at BUasBjyr (C.G.) Writ Appeal No. ^^' 2007 ^' Appellant ... ..? SHAILESH KUMAR PANDEY aged 36 yrs. Son of Late Shri Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Ex-Lower Division Clerk (compassionate Appointment) Forest Deptt. Narayanpur, Forest Circle, Kanker Resident ofvillage Mahidalkala, P.0. Gajan via Rampur Baghelan District Satna (M.P.) Aft.^>- ^m^ ::^ "•%, ,^1;"<y Respondents VERSUS / 1. The State Government of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, Departmentof Forest, Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal (M.P.) -2. State of Chhattishgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) 3. Principle Chief Secretary of Forest, Raipur(C.G-) 4. Conservator of Forest, Kanker circle, Kanker(C.G-) 5. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Narayanpur (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER RULE 157 {10} OF THE CHHATTISHGARH HIGH COURT RULES. 2005 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DMSION BENChT v'y" CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI H.L. DATTU, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS WRIT APPEAL N0. 34 OF 2007 Shaitesh Kumar Pandey Versus The State G<wernmerrt cS Chhattisgarh & Others Present: Shri Ajay Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant. Shri N.K. Agrawal, Dy. Advocate General for the State^ respondents. QRAL ORDER (Passed on 26m February, 2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed by H.L Dattu, CJ. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the tearned Single Judge in W.P.No.1067/2004 on 15-1-2007. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition, on ttie ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court neariy after ten years from the date of order i.e. 14-0-1994, whereby the appellant was removed from service. 2) Respondents had terminated the services of t»epetitioner by passing an order dated 14-9-1994. The petitioner had not questioned that order before any other superior forum. For the firet time he has called the correctness or otherwise of the said order before this Court in writ petition No.1067/2004. The tearned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground, that the discretionary relief '-<7 -'l' ^\i of this Court cannot be granted to a person, who had slept over his rights. 3) The writ remedy is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. A person who wants to exercise his right by invoking Article 226 ctf the Constitution, he should necessarily approach this Court within a reasonable time. If there is any delay and laches on the part of the appellant in approaching this Court without any reasonable cause, this Court can decline to entertajn the wr'rt petition. 4) In the instant case, an order was passed by tfie respondents on 14-9-1994 against the appellant. If for any reason appellant was aggrieved by the said order, he should have approached this Court or any other forum within a reasonable time. The appellant for the first time, that is, neariy after ten years from the date of passing ofthe order by the respondents has approached this Court, inter ajia, calling in question the order passed by the respondents on 14-9-1^4. A person, who had slept over his right, is not entitled to the discretlonary relief of this Court. Keeping this principle in view, the learned Sfengte Judge has rejected the writ petition. 5) We are in full agreement with conclusien reached by the tesurned Single Judge on 15-1-2007 in W.P.No.1067/2004. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and accordingly It is rejected. 6) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge