Dismissed¶6

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 2 Others v. Sub. Baliram Kumar (Retd.) (Army No. JC-702796M)

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2026WRIA/2419/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches; writ petition against Armed Forces Tribunal, Lucknow judgment dated 22.11.2024 in O.A. No. 1257 of 2023; Union of India (Ministry of Defence) v. Sub. Baliram Kumar (Retd.); WRIT - A No. 2419 of 2026; petition filed 19.02.2026, over a year after the impugned judgment; no limitation for writ petition but prompt approach required; departmental approval process held insufficient explanation; dismissed on delay ground alone, merits not examined.

What did the court decide?

Although no limitation is prescribed for filing a writ petition, a person has to approach the Court promptly and within reasonable time. ¶3

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 2 Others vs Sub. Baliram Kumar (Retd.) (Army No. JC-702796M) — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 2419 of 2026

¶3

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Defence New Delhi And 2 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sub. Baliram Kumar (Retd.) (Army No. Jc702796m) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Harsha Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) :

¶7

Court No. - 1

¶8

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

¶9

1. Heard.

¶10

2. This petition has been filed by the Union of India challenging the Judgment and order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No. 1257 of 2023.

¶11

3 . Although, no limitation is prescribed for filing a writ petition nevertheless, a person has to approach promptly and within reasonable time. In the case at hand, the petition has been filed on 19.02.2026 challenging a judgment dated 22.11.2024.

¶12

4. On being asked to demonstrate the explanation for the delay, learned counsel invited our attention to paragraph no.19 of the writ petition, which reads as under:-

¶13

"19) That although the instant writ petition is not statutorily however on the said subject, the petitioner submit that the impugned order is dated 22.11.2024. Thereafter, the matter was examined at the level of petitioner no.1, which decided that the matter was fit for challenge vide a writ petition. Thereafter, some time was consumed in processing of approvals in the Department and preparation of the instant matter. As such, the delay in approaching this Hon'ble Court is unintentional and bonafide."

¶14

WRIA No. 2419 of 2026

¶15

¶16

5. The contents of the above quoted paragraph are hardly a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Apparently, the petition suffers from delay and laches. The petitioners have been negligent in not filing the writ petition within reasonable time of the impugned judgment having been passed.

¶17

6. We see no reason to entertain this petition which suffers from such delay and laches. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed only on this ground.

¶18

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

¶19

February 27, 2026

¶20

Praveen

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 2 Others v. Sub. Baliram Kumar (Retd.) (Army No. JC-702796M)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 2 Others v. Sub. Baliram Kumar (Retd.) (Army No. JC-702796M)

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

Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others vs 636232-S Ex Jwo Baban Singh

Rajesh Kumar Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Manish Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Arvind Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 3 Others

Ambarish Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Panchayati Raj Deptt.) Lko. and 3 Others

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others vs IC-47740-A Col. Anil Kumar Mishra (Retd.)