Writ appeal filed against an order dismissing a petition by an ex-employee of Mysore Sugar Company Limited on grounds of delay and laches. This Court dismissed the appeal upholding the dismissal.
Writ appeal dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 3270 OF 2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
NIRANJANA LINGU L S/O LINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCCUP: SHIFT ENGINEER (S.C.E) THE MYSORE SUGAR COMPANY LTD., (CO. GENERATION) SUGAR TOWN, MANDYA-571 402.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. J M UMESH MURTHY - ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B S MANJUNATH - ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
NC: 2024:KHC:9217-DB WA No. 3270 of 2016
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 32783/2015 (S-RES) DATED 21/06/2016.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI .K .J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this writ appeal, the appellant has assailed the order passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32783/2015 dated 21.06.2016 wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches in filing the same.
NC: 2024:KHC:9217-DB WA No. 3270 of 2016
was extended subsequently and he was appointed in the sanctioned post, which was approved by the Board of Directors of the Company.
us including the order passed in W.P.No.32783/2015. It is admitted case of the appellant that he was appointed on contract basis for a fixed period. Though the term of appointment was subsequently extended, he was discontinued from service with effect from September 2012. Hence, in such a scenario, cause of action arose to the appellant to approach
the Writ Court in the month of September 2012 itself. In spite of the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition only in the year 2015 i.e., after lapse of 3 years. Hence, by considering the inordinate delay and laches in filing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition.
DIRECTOR, U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. VS. RAM GOPAL (AIRONLINE 2020 SC 93), wherein in the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extensively addressed the issue relating to limitation and has held thus: -
“Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fencesitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens
ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced.”
If the case on hand is seen collocated to the decision of
the Apex Court in the above case, the same is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, in our considered view, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and the said order does not call for any interference by this Court.
devoid of merits.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
KS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge correctly dismissed the underlying writ petition on grounds of inordinate delay and laches.
Whether implicit limitations of time apply to writ actions even if strict limitation does not apply.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chairman / Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ram GopalApplied¶36
Chairman / Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ram Gopal
NIRANJANA LINGU L
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MYSORE SUGAR COMPANY LTD.
THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MYSORE SUGAR COMPANY LTD.
KS Somashekar
Rajesh Rai K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
