IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 33347 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.RAJA MOHANAN, A.S.I.(G), SOUTHERN RANGE, VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. S.SUGATHAN, A.S.I.(G), SB (CID), HEADQUARTERS, ADMINISTRATION WING, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA), SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.NIRMALAN SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-645001. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 33347 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. They filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash Exhibit P6 Order as illegal and arbitrary. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to repost/re-transfer the petitioners in the Special Armed Police without loss of original seniority. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit P9 and Exhibit P10 representations submitted by the petitioners in the light of Exhibits P3, P4, P8 and P8(a) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a stipulated time.” 2. Ext.P6 is dated Nil-6-04. In fact that order was passed pursuant to the judgment in O.P.No.1323/2000. Since more than 6 years have elapsed after passing of Ext.P6, I directed the petitioners to file an affidavit explaining the delay. An affidavit dated 13.1.2011 has been filed purportedly explaining the delay. After gong through the same also, I am not satisfied that the petitioners have sufficiently explained the delay. Therefore, the petitioners are guilty of unexplained delay and laches. As such, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2