The High Court rejected the petitioner's explanation for a seventeen-year delay in filing writ petitions, citing laches. The court held that vigilance is required for rights acceptance. Consequently, both writ petitions were dismissed at the stage of admission.
Writ petitions dismissed at the stage of admission without costs.
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 FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT PETITION Nos. 3109 AND 3122 oF 2021
WP. No.31 09 of 2021:
Between:
p; $qOhuram Rtd Sr. Draughtsman, Sio. Bairu Balaiah, aged 7.1 yrs, 1_4_86, Bholakpur P.O, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad. TS
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may"oe pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any of the appropriate writ or order or iireciion in the nature of a Writ calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 7th Feb 2003 of the central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench in o A 1646/2001 and the order No 110'14/94 Estt (2) dated 23.'1 1.2001 issued by the 4th respondent and quash the same by declaring them as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutio nal and contrary t law with all consequential benefits such as arrears to pay and allowances etc.
Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S G.R. MERCY VIJAYA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI T. SUJAN KUMAR REDDY,
STANDING COUNSEL FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
Contd..
2
WRIT PETITION No. 3122 OF 2021
Between:
Gulam Hasan Mohiuddin, H.No. 16-1-27 Fort House Apartments Flat No.201, Sayeedabad, Hyderabad. TS.
...PETITIONER
AND
Home Affairs Central Secretariat
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of certiorari or any of the appropriate Writ or order or direction in the nature of a Writ calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 7th Feb 2003 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench in O.A. No. 164912001 and the order No 11O14194 Estt,(10) dated 23.11.2001 issued by the 4th respondent and quash the same by declaring them as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutio na I and contrary to law with all consequential benefits such as arrears to pay and allowances etc.
Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. G.R. MERCY VIJAYA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI T. SRUJAN KUMAR REDDY,
STANDING COUNSEL FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICEA.RAJASHEKE REDDY AND THE HO N'BLE DR, JUS CE SHAMEEMAKTHER
W.P.NOs.3l09 AND 3122 OF2021
COMMON ORDER(Per tne Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Roiosheker Reddv)
Thepelitioners in boththe writ petitionsworked os Senior
Droughlsmon ond Droughismonrespeclivelyin the office of Direclor of the Census Operotionsond retired from serviceon oltoiningthe oge of supero nnuo.tion.whiletheywere in service,lhe 3d respondentvide order doted 23.11.2001 concelledtheir higher grodeof poy scoles,which wos rejixed eorlier.Aggrieved by the some, the peiltioners herein, olong with other similorly siluotedemployees,flled o.A.Nos.1646ond 1649 ol 2001 on the file of CentrolAdministroliveTribunol, HyderobodBench' ot Hyderobod.TheTribunol,videcommonorderdoted0T02'2003in O.A.Nos.l644,1645,1646,1647,1648ond1649of20Oldismissedthe opplicotions. chollenginglhe order doted 07.02.2003,the peiitioners herein who ore opplicontsin o.A.Nos.l646 ond 1649 of 2001, filed the present writ pelitions.
Sri T.Srujon KumorReddy, Ieorned Stonding Counselfor Cenkol Governmeni, roisedo preliminoryobjectlon with regord to mointoinobility of the wrilpetitions on the ground of loches. He submiisthot in ihe writ offidoviis, no explonotionis offered by the petitioners for filing ihe writ petition ofler o period of seventeenyeorsfromthe dote of the impugned order,ondhencelhewritpetilionsmoybedismissedonlhegroundof Ioches.
2
The impugned common order possed by the Tribunol is doled 07.02.2003 ond the proceedings, where under the eorlier re-fixed higher scoles of poy wos concelled, wos on 23J1.200j. The present writ petitions hove been filed ofler o period of obout seventeen yeors. ln ihe offidovit filed in support of the writ pelitions, lhere is no explonotion ot oll for filing the writ petitions ot this length of time.
The leorned counsel oppeoring for lhe petilioners would submit thot the other oppliconls before Tribunol, who ore simllorly ploced, ond whose cloims were rejected, filed writ pelitions ogoinst the common order of the Tribunol do|ed07.02.2003, ond the some were ollowed in the yeor 2012, ond the respondents corried the molter to Apex Court, ond the some ended in dismissol ln the yeor 2018, ond oll these yeors, lhe pelitioners were owoiting the resull of those coses, ond depending on the result, filed the present wril pelilions.
The obove ground loken by the writ petilioners con hordly be considered os plousible or sufficient for condoning the deloy of obout seventeen yeors in filing the writ petitions. The petitioners, in oll these yeors, hove been in deep slumber, ond not vigilont in pursuing lheir remedies. The settled proposition of low is thol lhe court will come to lhe rescue of o person who is vigilont of his rights. The pelitioners ore not vigilont of lheir rights ond rhey hove not given ony explonotion, much less solisfoctory, for the deloy in invoking the extroordinory jurisdiction of this
J
courf under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of Indio. The Apex Court in R &
M IRUSI vs. KORAMANGALA RES,DENISy,c,t.ANCE GROU? AND OIHERS, ,
held thot:
"There is no doubt thoi deioy is o very importonl foctor while exercising exlroordlnory jurisdiction under Arlicle 226 of the Conslilulion. We connot disiurb the third porty interest creoled on occount of deloy. Even otherwise olso why Court should come lo rescue of o person who is not vigilont of his rights."
Therefore, only on the ground of loches, lhe writ petitions ore lioble
to be dismissed, ond occordlngly dismissed 01 the sloge of odmission.
lnterlocutory opplicoiions pending, if ony, sholl stond closed. No
order os to costs.
SD/.K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
!
SECTION OFFICER
To,
Prk
'(u oos).t sccgr
HIGH COURT
DATED:1010212021
COMMON ORDER
WP. Nos. 3109 and 3122 ol 2021
!'
1 il s 14 :i
z
',j 01tq,{il2021
(
*{
o
Dismissing the WPs' at the stage of admission without costs.
I fr,
-t [,
l-L
L
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitions should be maintained despite a delay of about seventeen years.
Whether lack of explanation for delay justifies dismissal on grounds of laches.
Whether the court can exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 for delayed petitions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R & M IRUSI vs. KORAMANGALA RES, DENIS, AGENCY GROUP AND OTHERSExplained¶49
Bairu Balaiah
Gulam Hasan Mohiuddin
Union of India
Registrar General India
Director, Census Operation
Asst Director, Census Operation
A. Rajasheker Reddy
Shameem Akther
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
