Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34437 of 2018 Petitioner :- Dinesh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Heard Sri Manish Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the authority below. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner in reply to the objection of the learned Standing Counsel for the State that there is delay of five years. It is further stated that the petitioner has lost his wife and that is the cause of delay.
The death certificate dated 16.4.2013 issued by the Registrar, (Birth and Death) Uttar Pradesh goes to show that the petitioner's wife died 6.12.2002, however, the writ petition has been filed on 2.10.2018 which is after five years of her death.
It is cardinal principle that law of limitation does not apply to the writ petition but reasonably prudent person ought to approach the Court within reasonable time. The Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that delay would defeat the equitable justice and justice under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.
In Government of West Bengal Vs. Tarun K. Roy and others 2004(1) SCC 347 and Chairman U.P. Jal Nigam and another Vs. Jaswant Singh and another 2006(11) SCC 464 and New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh and others J.T.2007(4) SC 253, the Apex Court observed that after a long time the writ petition should not have been entertained even if the petitioners are similarly situated and discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approached the Court after a long time. It was held that delay and laches were relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. In M/S Lipton India Ltd. And others vs. Union of India and others, J.T. 1994(6) SC 71 and M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and others 1995(5) SCC 628 it was held that though there was no period of limitation provided for filing a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within reasonable time. In K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1961 SC 993, it was said that representation would not be adequate explanation to take care of delay. Same view was reiterated in State of Orissa Vs. Pyari Mohan Samantaray and others AIR 1976 SC 2617 and State of Orissa and others Vs. Arun Kumar Patnaik and others 1976(3) SCC 579 and the said view has also been followed recently in Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India and others AIR 2007 SC 1330= 2007(1) Supreme 455 and New Delhi Municipal Council (supra). The aforesaid authorities of the Apex Court has also been followed by this Court in Chunvad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ESC 2423.
In that view of the matter when there is a totally unexplained delay of five years in not approaching the Court after the appeal is decided, I do not think that this Court should interfere in the concurrent finding of fact by the authority below.
Hence, the petition lacks merits and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 DKS