Dismissed¶4

Lal Chandra v. Chairman Human Right Commission

Uttarakhand HC6 Apr 2026WPSS/948/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches bar to writ petition; dismissal with no costs. Outsourced Peon in Uttarakhand Human Rights Commission disengaged in 2014; representation rejected by competent authority vide order dated 09.05.2017; writ petition (WPSS/948/2026) filed nearly nine years after the impugned order with no plausible explanation for delay (petition paragraph 17 termed lame); held not entertainable and dismissed by Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. on 06.04.2026. Single-judge bench; no statutes or precedents cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is barred by delay and laches; the impugned order was passed in 2017. ¶2

Lal Chandra Vs Chairman Human Right Commission — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:UHC:2388

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPSS/948/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
			Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
			2. Mr. Abhijay Negi and Mr. Priyansh Mittal, Advocates for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.
			3. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the respondent no. 5. 4. Petitioner was engaged through outsourcing for discharging duties of Peon in Uttarakhand Human Rights Commission. He was disengaged from service in 2014 against which he made a representation. His representation was rejected by the competent authority, vide order dated 09.05.2017.
			5. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the said order, passed on 09.05.2017, whereby his representation was rejected.
			6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition is barred by delay and laches. 7. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed in 2017 and the writ petition has been filed in

¶3

2026:UHC:2388

¶4

2016. There is no plausible
explanation for delay, even though, in paragraph no. 17, petitioner has attempted to offer some explanation, which on the face of it appears to be lame.
8. Thus, this Court do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition, after nearly nine years.
9. The writ petition, thus fails, and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
[ (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 06.04.2026 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4 403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095 C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.04.06 17:07:07 +05'30'

Lal Chandra v. Chairman Human Right Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Chandra v. Chairman Human Right Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Thapliyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Soniya Bhandari Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mansi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dushwant Singh Vs Uttarakhand Jal Vidhyut Nigam Ltd.

Mukul Singh Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand

Neelam Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies Uttarakhand