1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGEMENT D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.946/07 Bajrang Lal Gothwal vs. Rajasthan Hath Kargha Nigam & Ors. Date of Order :: 8th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Bhanwar Bagri for the appellant Mr. G.K. Garg for the respondents Heard counsel for the parties both on the limitation application and also in appeal. Delay in filing this appeal is condoned. The writ petitioner-appellant being aggrieved by the order as contained Annexure-6 to the writ petition dated 8.3.1984, whereby and whereunder the services of the employee of the project of respondent no.1 stood terminated automatically on account of closer of the project of respondent no.1, filed the writ application before this Court, which was subsequently registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5259/03 and was dismissed on account of delay and latches. From Annexure-6 to the writ application, it would be discernible that employee of the project of respondent no.1 stood automatically terminated on account of closer of the project. The writ application however was dismissed on the ground of delay and latches as it was filed almost after 18 years. Learned counsel for the appellant however submitted that on account of pendency of a criminal case against the appellant, he could not 2 challenge the order of termination which was ab initio void inasmuch as that no notice or any opportunity was given to the appellant prior to the order of termination. It is further submitted that the criminal case ended in acquittal in 2000 and thereafter the writ application was filed in 2002. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court could not have dismissed the writ petition in limine on the ground of delay and latches. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submitted that the order of termination as contained Annexure-6 to the writ application had nothing to do with the criminal trial where the appellant was made an accused. On plain reading of Annexure-6, it appears that on account of closer of the project, services of its employees automatically stood terminated with effect from 8.3.1984. It is not a case that on account of criminal charge, the appellant was terminated from services. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant in that view of the matter is without any basis that he waited for the criminal trial and no sooner the criminal trial was over and he was acquitted, he preferred the writ application. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge of this Court was wholly justified in dismissing the writ application on the ground of delay and latches. No cause whatsoever has been shown either in the writ application or in this intra court appeal 3 that the writ petitioner was prevented by some other cause in not filing the writ application within a reasonable period. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case as referred to above, we do not find any fault with the order impugned. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq),J. (Narayan Roy), C.J. ravi/-