Writ petition maintaining a delay of approximately 20 years filed by a petitioner alleging dementia preventing timely challenge to an order denying promotion benefits. The single judge held that no valid ground existed to condone the delay.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed for failure to explain the delay satisfactorily.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6085 of 2022
Petitioner :- Abhimanyu Lal Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aalok Kumar Srivastava,Hanuman Prasad Dube,Vipul Dube Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bala Nath Mishra,M.N. Singh
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Hanuman Prasad Dube, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents- 1,3 and 4 and Mr. Bala Nath Mishra, learned counsel for respondent-2.
Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 20.4.2002, passed by respondent-3 Under Secretary Finance (Audit) Department, Goverment of U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, whereby request of the petitioner to open the sealed cover envelope pertaining to promotion of petitioner, has been denied.
At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents- 1,3 and 4 has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of present writ petition on the ground of laches. In the submission of learned Standing Counsel, order impugned in present writ petition was passed on 20.4.2002. He, therefore, contends that petitioner has approached this Court after expiry of almost 20 years. However, laches in filing the present writ petition have not been sufficiently explained. He has then invited attention of Court to paragraphs 25 and 26 of the writ petition, wherein laches in filing present writ petition have been sought to be explained. Same are reproduced herein under:
"25. That is stated that since the petitioner was suffering from dementia on account of the undue harassment caused to him by the respondents and his treatment was going on and therefore, he was not in a position to persuade his matter anymore for a considerable long period, inasmuch as he was not in such a mental position to understand the things and whatever was happening, the petitioner could not recollect correctly and started forgetting the things. Consequently, the petitioner was confined to home and he could not persuade his matter regarding promotion on the post of Regional Audit Officer, although he was selected by for promotion by the selection committee constituted in this behalf, but the recommendation of the selection committee was kept in a sealed cover envelop without assigning any reason.
26. That it is stated that by grace of God and proper Ayurvedic
treatment, the health of the petitioner was recovered and after recovery of health, the petitioner could recollect the matter relating to his promotion on the post of Regional Audit Officer and all consequential benefits for which the petitioner was legally entitled to."
Placing reliance upon paragraph 13 of the judgement of Supreme Court in Bharat Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 1988 2181 , it is contended that since averments made in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the writ petition have not been supported by any document same are liable to be ignored. He, therefore, contends that since explanation offered for explaining laches in filing present writ petition have not been substantiated by any document, explanation offered by the petitioner is wholly misconceived and also not worthy of reliance.
When confronted with above, Mr. Hanuman Prasad Dube, learned counsel for petitioner has referred to the judgement of Apex Court in Asger Ibrahim Amin Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (2016) 13 SCC 797, Union of India and Others Vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 and the judgement of this Court in Speical Appeal Defective No. 92 of 2016 (Ravindra Nath Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) decided on 15.2.2016.
I have perused the judgements relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner. However, the principle enunciated in aforesaid judgements is to the effect that in case there is no accrual of third party rights then the delay in filing the writ petition can be condoned. However, aforesaid judgement does not lay down the proposition that inspite of unsatisfactory explanation, the Court is bound to ignore the laches in filing the writ petition.
This being the position, this Court does not find any good ground to entertain the present writ petition.
Writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.5.2022 Arshad
Digitally signed by ARSHAD MAHMOOD Date: 2022.05.26 17:38:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether writ petition is maintainable despite delay of nearly 20 years given petitioner's dementia and subsequent recovery.
Whether the unsatisfactory explanation for laches can be condoned without third party rights being accrued.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bharat Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and OthersReferred¶11
AIR 1988 2181 · Who else cites this
Asger Ibrahim Amin Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of IndiaReferred¶12
(2016) 13 SCC 797 · Who else cites this
Union of India and Others Vs. Tarsem SinghReferred¶12
(2008) 8 SCC 648 · Who else cites this
Ravindra Nath Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.Referred¶12
Special Appeal Defective No. 92 of 2016
Abhimanyu Lal Srivastava
State Of U.P.
respondent-2
respondent-3 Under Secretary Finance
respondent-4
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
