A petition can be dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay and laches: High Court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.57021 Shyam Nandan Roy Son of Late Harilal Rai resident of Village Simaria Po lice Station Barauni District Begusarai 2. Ashok Kumar Singh Son of Siyaram Singh resident of Village Bihat Zero Mile Police Station Barauni District Begusarai Jagdish Bhagat Son of Late Snehi Bhagat resident of Village Hawaspur Police Station Barauni District Begusarai Ram Naresh Rai Son of Late Ram Jatan Rai resident of Village Rachiahi Nayatola Police Station Matihani District Begusarai Bhattu Rai Son of Ram Bahadur Rai resident of Village Rachiahi Nayatola Police Station Matihani District Begusarai ... Petitioner s 1. Union of India through the Secretary Department of Chemical and Fertil izer Government of India New Delhi The Secretary Department of Chemical and Fertilizer Government of India The Under Secretary Department of Fertilizers Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers Government of India Shastri Bhawan New Delhi 4. Hindustan Urvarak and Rasayan Ltd. having its Corporate Office at Core 3 9th Floor SCOPE Minar Laxmi Nagar District Centre New Delhi 110092 through its Managing Director The Managing Director Hindustan Urvarak and Rasayan Ltd. having its Corporate Office at Core 3 9th Floor SCOPE Minar Laxmi Nagar District Centre New Delhi 110092 6. HIndustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. Madhuvan 55 Nehru Place New Delhi 110019 through its Managing Director The Managing Director Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. Madhuvan 55 Nehru Place New Delhi 110019 Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. P.O. Parbatpur District Di brugarh Pin 786623 through its Managing Director The Managing Director Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd P.O Parbatpur District Dibrugarh Pin 786623 10. Projects and Development India Ltd. PDIL Bhawan A 14 Sector I NOIDA 201301 District Gautam Buddha Nagar U.P. India through its 11. The Managing Director Projects and Development India Ltd. PDIL Bhawan A 14 Sector I NOIDA 201301 District Gautam Buddha Na gar U.P. India 12. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd having its registered Office at Priyadarshini Eastern Express Highway Mumbai 400022 through its Man Patna High Court CWJC No.57021 dt.07 03 2022 13. The Managing Director Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd having its registered Officer at Priyadarshini Eastern Express Highway Mumbai For the Petitioner s ... Respondent s For the Respondent s Mr. P.N. Shahi Sr. Advocate Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh Advocate Mr. Dr. Krishna Nandan Singhtill the date of presentation of this petition. Assuming that there were certain correspondence among the respondents in the year 2018 that does not cure the de lay and laches from the year 2011 to 2021 Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have slept over the matter. Moreover except petitioner no. 2 rest of them have already crossed age of sixty years. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jammu and Kashmir V. R.K. Zalpuri repored in AIR 2016 SC 3006 at para 20 held as under: “20. Having stated thus it is useful to refer to a passage from City and Patna High Court CWJC No.57021 dt.07 03 2022 Industrial Development Corporation V Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others wherein this Court while dwelling upon ju risdiction under Article 226 of the Consti tution has expressed thus: “The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 if duty bound to consider whether a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed ques tions of facts and whether they can be sat isfactorily resolved b) the petition reveals all mate rial facts c) the petitioner has any alter native or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute d) person invoking the jurisdic tion is guilty of unexplained delay and e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation f) grant of relief is against pub lic policy or barred by any valid law and host of other factors.” And also Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajsthan Vs. Surji Devi reported in1 SCC 17 at para 6 to 9 held as under: “6. The facts which emerged are that the late husband of the respondent was removed dismissed from service by order dated 16 12 1996. He preferred an appeal which was pending before the appellate au thority. During the pendency of the ap peal the late husband of the respondent employee died passed away in the year 2009. If the late husband of the re spondent would not have been termi Patna High Court CWJC No.57021 dt.07 03 2022 nated dismissed he would have attained the age of superannuation in the year 1999. After the death of the employee late husband of the respondent she did not pursue the appeal may be she might not be aware of filing pendency of the appeal. That thereafter the re spondent widow of the employee filed a writ petition before the High Court in the year 2012. Thus by the time the re spondent preferred a writ petition be fore the High Court 15 years had passed from the date of termination and even approximately 13 years from the date on which the employee would have attained the age of superannuation i.e from the year 1999 7. Considering the afore said facts and circumstances as such the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition in the year 2012 challenging the order of ter mination passed on 16 12 1996 on the ground of delay and laches alone. At this stage it is required to be noted that even despite the fact that it was specifi cally prayed by the respondent in writ petition before the learned Single Judge to direct the authority to decide the ap peal preferred by her husband the learned Single Judge despite the above prayer and the pending appeal entered into the merits of the case and quashed and set aside the order of termination dated 16 12 1996 8. The submission on be half of the respondent is that the termi nation on 16 12 1996 was absolutely il legal and against the principles of natu ral justice is concerned once we hold that the writ petition was barred by de lay and laches thereafter the merits are Patna High Court CWJC No.57021 dt.07 03 2022 not required to be considered. As ob served hereinabove the learned Single Judge erred in entertaining the petition in the year 2012 challenging the order of termination passed in the year 1996 on the ground of delay and laches and more particularly when even otherwise if the termination order would not have been passed the deceased employee would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 1999 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated 1 3 2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as well as the judgment and order dated 17 1 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge are hereby quashed and set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.” In the light of these facts and circumstances of the case the present petition stands dismissed on the ground of delay and (P. B. Bajanthri J

Summary: While exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court is duty-bound to consider whether adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved. If the petition reveals all material facts and the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute. The person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches or ex facie barred by any laws of limitation and the same was upheld by High Court of Patna through the learned bench led by JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI in the case of Shyam Nandan Roy vs. Union of India [Case No.5708 of 2021] on 07.03.2022. The facts of the case are that the Petitioners were ex-employees of the Hindustan Urvarak and Rasayan Limited. The aforesaid corporation was closed and because of it, the employees were settled with certain compensation. Thereafter, Government of India has taken a decision to accommodate ex-employee of the aforesaid Corporation in some other organization of Government of India. The petitioners and others filed a petition and it was decided in favour of the petitioners only to the extent of examining the petitioners’ claim. Due to non-compliance the petitioners preferred contempt petition. Thereafter, the petitioners have slept over the matter till presenting of the present petition. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that cause of action still subsists in view of various correspondence by the Government. It is to be noted that the petitioners have slept over the matter till the date of presentation of this petition. Assuming that there were certain correspondence among the respondents that does not cure the delay and laches from the year 2011 to 2021. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have slept over the matter. Moreover, except petitioner no. 2 rest of them have already crossed age of sixty years. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, Court held that the present petition stands to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The Court observed that “while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved. If the petition reveals all material facts and the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute. The person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches or ex facie barred by any laws of limitation. If the grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law and host of other factors”.