Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10547 of 2018 Petitioner :- Governing Body, Christ Church College And Another Respondent :- Vice Chancellor, Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.D. Saunders Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rohit Pandey
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
1. Heard Sri A.D. Saunders, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Rohit Pandey, Advocate for respondent-University.
2. Writ petition is directed against order dated 12.09.2017 passed by Assistant Director, Higher Education, Allahabad.
3. This writ petition has been filed on 23.04.2018, i.e., after more than 7 months. Only explanation given in writ petition, if we read averments contained in various paragraphs of writ petition including paras 45 and 60, is that petitioner made a further representation dated 19.09.2017 to Director, Higher Education, Allahabad and was waiting for its decision.
4. However, when questioned from learned counsel for petitioner as to under which provision aforesaid representation was made to Director, Higher Education, he could give no reply and could not point out that aforesaid representation is referable to any statutory provision and, therefore, petitioner has a right to wait for a decision to be taken by Director since an authority to whom a statutory representation or appeal etc. is provided under statute, a person availing such remedy is entitled to wait for decision of such authority but non-statutory and uncalled for representation does not explain laches and delay. In the present case aforesaid representation dated 19.09.2017 cannot be said to be a statutory representation and, therefore, does not explain delay and laches of more than seven months.
5. Undue delay and laches are relevant factors in exercising equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Following the cases of 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, the Apex Court in New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh and others J.T.2007(4) SC 253, 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.
6. The petitioner is admittedly guilty of undue delay and laches which has not been explained at all. For granting relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, laches is an important factor disentitling a litigant for any relief, as discussed above.
7. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 AK