1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2644/2010 (Satish S. Bobde VERSUS Mahatma Gandhi Krishak Shaikshanik Sanstha & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.N. Shende, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Thomas h/f Shri Masood Shareef counsel for the R-1. Mrs. I.L. Bodade, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 18 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Grievance Committee, Nagpur dated 24.02.2006. It is necessary to note that though the order was passed by the Grievance Committee in the month of February- 2006, the petition was presented in this Court on 12.03.2010. The petition suffers from laches. The petitioner has tried to explain the laches in Ground No.10 of the writ petition. It is stated by the petitioner in Ground No.9 that the petitioner had lost in the Courts on two occasions since he did not get justice from the Court, he never applied for grant of certified copy of the impugned order dated 24.02.2006. It is then stated in Ground No.10 that due to the dismissal of the appeal, the mental condition of the petitioner was not proper and since he was out of employment for a long time, there were no funds with him to file an appeal against the impugned order. Ultimately, the real reason for preferring this petition is stated in Ground No.10 as the petitioner states 2 that two other employees had filed writ petition against the same order bearing Writ Petition No.1159/2007 and this Court, by the judgment dated 05.02.2010, had allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the common judgment passed by the Grievance Committee as far as those petitioners were concerned. After realizing this fact in the first week of March-2010, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that he approached this Court by filing the instant petition on 12.03.2010. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1 by learned counsel Shri Thomas that the judgment passed in the other writ petition is also under challenge in a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the petitioner cannot take advantage of the judgment passed in favour of those petitioners, who were diligent in prosecuting the matter. Mrs. Bodade, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3, also sought for the dismissal of the petition on the ground of laches as the laches are not satisfactorily explained. The learned Assistant Government Pleader relied on the judgment reported in 2006(11) SCC 464 (U.P. Jal Nigam & another Versus Jaswant Singh & another) to substantiate her submission that there cannot be a parity between vigilant persons and non-vigilant persons in invoking protection of their rights. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to grant relief to the petitioners, who did not wake up to challenge their retirement and accepted the same. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the Principles of Estoppel, Acquiescence and Waiver would be attracted in this case. 3 On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as it suffers from laches and the delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. It is clear from the statement in Ground No.9 that the petitioner was thinking that he would not get justice from the Court and, therefore, had not applied for grant of certified copy of the order. The other submission of the petitioner that earlier he had no funds to file the petition also does not appeal to this Court as in Ground No.11, the petitioner states that after considering his economical condition (which normally should be more weaker after four years), he had preferred the writ petition in March-2010. It is apparent from a reading of Ground Nos.9, 10 and 11 that the present petition is preferred only with a view to seek similar relief, which was granted to Shri Arvind Puralkar and Shri Anand Bokde in Writ Petition No.1159/2007. Shri Arvind Puralkar and Shri Anand Bokde were vigilant litigants and the petitioner was not one and so as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there cannot be a parity between the two classes. In the result, the petition suffers from laches and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE