Dismissed

Krishna Pada Mistry v. Union of India

Delhi HC25 Jul 2024LPA/671/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge held appellant's writ petition seeking Dandakaranya settlement benefits barred by laches after a 32-year delay. Bench dismissed the appeal, agreeing the petition is barred as the Scheme has closed and no writ can be issued in favor of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with costs, thereby upholding the Single Judge's order that barred the writ petition.

Krishna Pada Mistry Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

- LPA 671/2024 & C.M.Nos.41814-41815/2024

¶3

KRISHNA PADA MISTRY .....Appellant Through: Ms.Gulshan Jahan with Mr.Surya Kamal Mishra, Advocates with Mr.Sukharanjan Mistry, AR.

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr.Anuj Chaturvedi, Advocate for UOI (Through VC)

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶7

¶8

O R D E R 25.07.2024

¶9

Present appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 30^th May, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 8033/2024 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was held to be barred by laches.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant states that it is not a case where the appellant had deliberately and intentionally not approached the Court for almost thirty two (32) years. She contends that the delay was only due to his illiteracy and the good faith he had in the authorities.

¶11

The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has held that the appellant-petitioner (therein) has challenged the communications dated 04^th February, 1983, 07^th October, 1985 and 13^th January, 1989, wherein it was held that the petitioner was not eligible for the settlement benefits under the Dandakaranya project. The reasons given before the

¶12

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 01:17:24

¶13

learned Single Judge as well as before this Court for condonation of delay in filing the writ petition are untenable in law.

¶14

In any event, as the Scheme under which the appellant seeks resettlement has closed, this Court is in agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge that a writ cannot be issued in favour of the petitionerappellant.

¶15

Accordingly, the present appeal, being bereft of merits, is dismissed along with the applications.

¶16

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶17

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶18

JULY 25, 2024 KA

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 01:17:24

Krishna Pada Mistry v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Pada Mistry v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mithlesh Vs Sh. Ashok Kumar

Reenu Singhal & Anr. Vs Satish Maheshwari & Ors.

Justice for All Vs Honble Lieutenent Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Labour Law Association Vs the Registrar General Delhi High Court & Anr.

Simran Kumari Vs Bar Council of India & Anr.

M/S Rakesh Gupta Jv and Glazetech Industries Private Limited Vs National Highways Logistics Management Limited & Anr.