The Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition for constitutional challenges regarding military discipline and punishment under the CISFC Act due to inordinate laches and the misconceived nature of the filed representation.
The petition was dismissed on the ground of laches due to the three-year delay in filing the representation.
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.
$~
49 + W.P.(C) 2429/2019
VIKRAM LATTHAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Anil Dabas and Mr Praveen Kumar, Advocates for UOI./R-1 to 3.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
O R D E R
% 11.03.2019
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
I.S. MEHTA, J.
MARCH 11, 2019 rd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be allowed given the petitioner's three-year delay in filing a representation under Section 9(3) of the CISFC Act.
Whether the law of laches bars the petition due to the unexplained delay in challenging the impugned order.
Vikram Latthar
Union of India
S. Muralidhar
I.S. Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
