This court dismissed the writ petition challenging the selection of a distributor under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme. The court held that the grievance was redressed over nine years ago and the petition was barred by laches and delay.
Writ petition barred by delay and laches, and liable to be dismissed.
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. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7296 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sanjay Sharma Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Jai Prakash Rao Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Abrar Ahmad,C.S.C.,Santosh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Union of India, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent no.2 and Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Present writ petition has been preferred for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the District Magistrate, Kushinagar (respondent no.3 ) to pass an appropriate order on the application dated 14.1.2023 moved by the petitioner within a stipulated period.
Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that earlier petitioner had preferred Writ-C No.48214 of 2013 ( Sanjay Sharma vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others ), wherein he had challenged the final select list for settling rights in respect of "Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak Scheme". The said writ petition was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.9.2013 directing the respondent Corporation to decide the complaint of the petitioner after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned parties. In response of the aforesaid order, the objection/complaint of the petitioner has been redressed by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (in short, the BPCL) through its decision dated 22.10.2013, which is appended as Annexure-8 to the writ petition, indicating therein that the complaint letter of the petitioner dated 9.4.2013) was replied by the Corporation vide Letter No.ALD/RGGLV/Phase IV on 22.4.2013 and it is not mandatory for all the eligible applicants to be present during draw. As per RGGLV Brochure clause no.12.7, minimum 50% quorum is required from qualified and eligible candidates at the time of draw. It has been further
observed that moreover, during field verification, Sri Ashamuni Singh was present and all the information given in the application were found to be correct and accordingly LOI was issued to the candidate.
In this backdrop, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently contended that the grievance/complaint of the petitioner has been redressed by the Territory Manager (LPG), Allahabad vide its order dated 22.10.2013 and neither the said order has been assailed nor thereafter any complaint has been filed. In response of the allotment letter, the allottee is running the retail outlet successfully without any complaint and at this belated stage, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find that the Government of India has launched a Scheme known as "Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme" for distribution of LPG in the rural area for cooking purpose. Consequently, the BPCL published an advertisement for distributor at Sapha, District Kushinagar in which the petitioner was also an applicant. Finally, the respondent no.5 was selected in the draw held on 22.03.2013 and accordingly, Letter of Intent was issued in his favour. Since then the respondent no.5 is running the retail outlet in question without any complaint. The petitioner has made a complaint against settlement of RGGLV Distributorship at Sapha, District Kushinagar in favour of respondent no.5. He had also preferred the aforesaid Writ C No48214 of 2013 and the same was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 24.9.2013 directing the Corporation to decide the objection/complaint of the petitioner on its merit. In response thereof, the grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed by the Territory Manager, LPG, Allahabad vide its order dated 22.10.2013. The petitioner has approached this court after more than nine years. There is no good explanation for delay and laches in filing the petition on the part of the petitioner.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R & M Trust Vs. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and others reported at 2005 (3) SCC 91 held thus:-
"There is no doubt that delay is a very important factor while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We cannot disturb the third party interest created on account of delay. Even otherwise also why Court should come to
rescue of person who is not vigilant of his rights."
A similar sentiment was echoed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India, reported at 2007 (9) SCC 274 the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined as under:-
"The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction."
When the issue of delay and laches came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankara Co-op Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M. Prabhakar and Ors, reported at 2011(5)SCC 607, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated settled position of law and confirmed the well established criteria which has to be considered before exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relevant portion is extracted herein below:-
"53. The relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches should be put against a person who approaches the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution is now well settled. They are: (1) there is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its own facts. (2) The principle on which the court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the Petitioners. (3) The satisfactory way of explaining delay in making an application under Article 226 is for the Petitioner to show that he had been seeking relief elsewhere in a manner provided by law. If he runs after a remedy not provided in the Statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High Court to condone the delay. It is immaterial what the Petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy. (4) No hard and fast rule, can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts. (5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of the delay."
The above stated position of law on the question of delay and laches on part of a petitioner controls the facts of the case. The explanation for laches and delay, being self
serving and lacking in credibility is rejected. The petitioner cannot revive a stale cause of action by tendering spurious explanations. The writ petition is barred by delay and laches and is not liable to be entertained.
The writ petition sans merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.4.2023 Salim
Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition filed after nine years of the final administrative order is maintainable in light of laches and delay.
Whether the petitioner has provided a satisfactory explanation for the unexplained delay in filing the petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R & M Trust Vs. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and othersRelied on¶10
R & M Trust Vs. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and others, 2005 (3) SCC 91 · Who else cites this
Shiv Dass Vs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶13
Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India, 2007 (9) SCC 274 · Who else cites this
Shankara Co-op Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M. Prabhakar and OrsApplied¶15
Shankara Co-op Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M. Prabhakar and Ors, 2011(5)SCC 607 · Who else cites this
Sanjay Sharma
Union Of India
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Manjive Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
