Writ petition challenging 2019 orders was dismissed at admission stage on grounds of delay and laches; the Court found the petitioner's explanation vague, casual, and unsupported, with no satisfactory justification for the seven-year delay.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 4762 of 2026
Jamuna Prasad
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Irrigation Lko. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
| Counsel for Petitioner(s) | : Vishwanath Pratap Singh |
|---|---|
| Counsel for Respondent(s) | : C.S.C. |
Court No. - 18
HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 30.04.2019 and 28.11.2019, contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.
At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, submitting that the petitioner has failed to provide any plausible or satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in approaching this Court.
In response thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay and laches have been explained in paragraph no. 11 of the writ petition.
The Court has perused the pleadings on record, including the explanation furnished by the petitioner in paragraph no. 11 of the writ petition. In the opinion of this Court, the explanation averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly vague, casual, and insufficient in nature. No specific particulars or material facts have been disclosed so as to satisfactorily explain the prolonged delay, nor has any documentary material been brought on record in support thereof.
From the record, it is evident that the writ petition has been instituted after a
WRIA No. 4762 of 2026
2
delay of more than seven years, which remains substantially unexplained.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)
May 11, 2026
R.C.
Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging orders dated 30.04.2019 and 28.11.2019 was maintainable despite a delay of over seven years in approaching the Court.
Jamuna Prasad
State of U.P. thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Lko.
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
