Case Details

SRI RADHE KRISHNA GUPTA @ RADHA KRISHAN GUPTA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement

Sri Radhe Krishna Gupta @ Radha Krishan Gupta v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 5242 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 2181 (27 January 2006)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO. 34

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 5242 OF 2006

Sri Radhe Krishna Gupta @

Radha Krishan Gupta ------------- Petitioner

Versus.

State of U.P. & Ors. ------------- Respondents

_________

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed raising grievance that petitioner was retired on 30th January, 2004, and that as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court subsequently, in Harwindra Kumar Vs. Chief Engineer, Karmik & Ors., (2006) 1 UPLBEC 20, he was entitled to continue up to the age of 60, and as he had wrongly been retired on 30th January, 2004, he is entitled for the salary of two years.

The petitioner has not furnished any explanation for coming to the Court after expiry of two years.

If some person has taken a relief from this Court by filing a Writ Petition immediately after the cause of action had arisen, petitioner cannot take the benefit thereof by filing a writ petition belatedly. He cannot take any benefit thereof at such a belated stage, for the reason that he cannot be permitted to take the impetus of the order passed at the behest of some diligent person.

In State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 267, the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches on the ground that he filed the petition just after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. The Court observed that such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches.

Same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2366, observing as under:-

"Suffice it to state that appellants may be sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wake-up when they had impetus from Veerpal Chauhan and Ajit Singh's ratio.... desperate attempts of the appellants to re-do the seniority, held by them in various cadre.... are not amenable to the judicial review at this belated stage. The High Court, therefore, has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay as well."

In M/s. Rup Diamonds & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1989 SC 674, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a case where petitioner wanted to get the relief on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court wherein a particular law had been declared ultra vires. The Court rejected the petition on the ground of delay and latches observing as under:-

"There is one more ground which basically sets the present case apart. Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they have not persued for several years. Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and close to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided."

Thus, petitioner was not entitled to claim any benefit of the said judgment of this Court.

In view of the above, the petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

27.1.2006

AKSI

Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Case Details

Case Law Search

Judgement

Copyright

Advertisement