1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-
"[A] That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order no. CB-2/anshkalin/vashi/1077/06 by way of message form dated 31.05.2006 and government resolution dated 15.07.2006 passed by respondent and that this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to declare the act, action and conduct of the respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law.
[B] That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to reinstate the petitioner with consequent benefits for the post of the water bearer in panthawala police station, Palanpur, Banaskantha.
[C] That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to reinstate the petitioner pending this petition.
[D] That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of the provisions of law and pass necessary orders.
[E] ......."
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of part time water bearer vide order dated 14.10.1996. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent without giving any notice or opportunity of being heard, removed him from the service by order dated 31.05.2006. It is further the case of the petitioner that thereafter he was again appointed for the same post on ad hoc basis for the period from 15.07.2006 to 15.01.2007 and thereafter from 13.04.2007 to 14.07.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations to the respondents, but no reply is received by him. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The petitioner was removed from the service vide order dated 31.05.20006. The petitioner has sought to challenge the impugned order by way of filing the present petition only in the year 2012, i.e. after a period of more than six years. No explanation, much less any satisfactory explanation, has come from the petitioner with regard to the said delay caused in filing the present petition.
4. Looking to the facts of the case, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1330.
In that case, it has been held that if petition is filed beyond a reasonable period, say three years, normally, the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief. In the present case, as stated herein above, the petition came to be filed after a delay of more than six years and no explanation has come from the petitioner as regards the said delay. Hence, only on the ground of delay, the relief as prayed for cannot be granted.
5. Consequently, the petition stands summarily rejected.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top