Dismissed¶16

Union of India, Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and 4 Others v. Ex Ser No. 12898401 N Naik Gd/Ta Narayan Dutt Punetha

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2026WRIA/2247/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WRIT - A No. 2247 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), decided 25.02.2026; Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Ex-Serviceman Naik Narayan Dutt Punetha; writ petition against judgment dated 12.12.2022 in O.A. No. 365 of 2022; dismissed solely on the ground of delay - filed more than three years late, explanations in paras 3-4 of the petition rejected, file movement held no explanation, unexplained laches; coram Rajan Roy, J. and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.; counsel for petitioner Mahendra Kumar Misra.

What did the court decide?

Paragraph 3 of the writ petition cannot be said to be an explanation for the delay of more than three years in filing the petition. ¶13

Union of India, Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and 4 Others vs Ex Ser No. 12898401 N Naik Gd/Ta Narayan Dutt Punetha — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition, filed more than three years after the judgment dated 12.12.2022 in Original Application No. 365 of 2022, should be entertained despite the inordinate delay, i.e., whether sufficient cause for the delay was demonstrated.

¶13

Court's answer

Paragraph 3 of the writ petition cannot be said to be an explanation for the delay of more than three years in filing the petition.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The reasons in paragraph 4 of the writ petition are not acceptable as an explanation for the inordinate delay; mere movement of the file from one office or desk to another is hardly an explanation, and the petition discloses no action taken against any officer or employee who may have caused the delay.

¶13

Key takeaways

The petition suffers from unexplained laches; the respondent has held a judgment in his favour for the past three years, and it would be too unreasonable to make him contest the belated petition.ratio¶16
The writ petition is dismissed solely on the ground of the unexplained, inordinate delay in filing it.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT - A No. 2247 of 2026, decided 25 February 2026 (Rajan Roy and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ.): The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, challenged the judgment dated 12.12.2022 in Original Application No. 365 of 2022 by a writ petition filed more than three years later. Asked to show sufficient cause for the delay, the explanations in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the petition were found insufficient; movement of the file from one office or desk to another was held to be hardly an explanation, and no action against any officer or employee responsible for the delay was disclosed. Holding that the petition suffered from unexplained laches, and that the respondent-ex-serviceman had held a judgment in his favour for three years, the Court dismissed the petition solely on the ground of the inordinate, unexplained delay.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 2247 of 2026

¶3

Union Of India, Thru. The Secy. Ministry Of Defence, New Delhi And 4 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ex Ser No. 12898401 N Naik Gd/Ta Narayan Dutt Punetha

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mahendra Kumar Misra : Counsel for Respondent(s)

¶9

Court No. - 1

¶10

HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

¶11

1. By means of this petition filed in 2026, the petitioner-Union of India etc. have challenged the judgment dated judgment dated 12.12.2022 passed in Original Application No. 365 of 2022.

¶12

2. The petition has been filed more than three years after passing of the said judgment.

¶13

3. On being asked to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention through Paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the writ petition. We have perused the said paragraphs. Paragraph no.3 cannot be said to be explanation for the said delay. Paragraph no. 4 says that the delay is bonafide but does not demonstrate as to what could be the bonafide in filing the writ petition after more than three years of the judgment impugned herein. Mere movement of the file from one office or desk to another is hardly an explanation. The petition also does not disclose that any action may have been taken against any officer or employee, who may have caused the delay, if it is so.

¶14

WRIA No. 2247 of 2026

¶15

¶16

Reasons given in paragraph no. 4 are not acceptable as an explanation for such an inordinate delay. The petition suffers from unexplained latches and the respondent has a judgment in his favour for the past three years, therefore, it would be too unreasonable to make him contest this belated petition in the circumstances before us. We, accordingly, dismiss this petition only on this ground.

¶17

(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶18

February 25 , 2026 Anuj Singh

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Union of India, Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and 4 Others v. Ex Ser No. 12898401 N Naik Gd/Ta Narayan Dutt Punetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India, Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and 4 Others v. Ex Ser No. 12898401 N Naik Gd/Ta Narayan Dutt Punetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

No. 8431355X Nk/Po (Ts) Sandeep Kumar Pondey vs Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defense(Army) New Delhi and 3 Others

Krishna Kumar vs Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

M/S Mahalaxmi Buildtech Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Sandeep Chaudhary vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Infrastructure and Industrial Develop. and Anr.

Mohammad Zahid vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Govt. Lko. and 4 Others

M/S Gayatri Developwell Private Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Ankit Raj vs Anju Sharma and 4 Others

Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology Thru. Registrar and 2 Others vs Ram Jatti