Rahul Mavai v. Union of India & Ors

1. This writ petition has been filed after an inordinate delay of six years. The impugned order was passed on 17 July 2018. The only explanation for the delay, as contained in para 4 of the writ petition, reads thus:

4. That it reveals from the face of records that the petitioner who had applied for a Group ‘D’ post, belongs from socially weaker backward uneducated family is the resident of a remote Village namely Lala Khar, Teh-Sohna, Gurgaon, Haryana having the lesser qualification, after dismissal of his OA No. 32/2016 on dt. 17.07.18 approached to a counsel namely Sh. Deepak Maan locally practicing in District Court Gurgaon who has been misleading by giving the fake dates, the petitioner, suffering from financial hardships was unable to pursue his case personally on dates given by the counsel rather taking care of his case telephonically however visited to his counsel on dt. 08.08.24 to know the whereabouts of his case in absence of any proper information wherein after a hot discussion and quarrelling, anyhow the incomplete file was returned and on queries it is found that no case was filed before the Hon’ble High Court for which a complaint is lodged before the District Bar Association Gurgaon and thereby the petitioner who had become the victim of adverse circumstances only applied and obtained the complete set of his case from the Tribunal on 27.09.24 and hence the instant writ petition is delayed. That it is well settled law of the land that a petitioner should not suffer due to mistake on the part of his counsel in case of Rafiq & Anr. v Munshi Lai & Anr[1] and Ajit Kumar Singh v Chiranji Lai[2].”

2. On the aspect of delay and laches, and their effect on writ proceedings, the Supreme Court has, in its recent decision in Mrinmoy Maity v Chhanda Koley[3], reiterated the legal position thus:

2002 AD (SC) 235 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551 invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction and it all depends on facts and circumstances of each case, same cannot be described in a straightjacket formula with mathematical precision. The ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ court depends upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the facts have travelled.

11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been invoked and even submitting of memorials would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a natural death. In such circumstances on the ground of delay and latches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed or the applicant ought to be non-suited. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will have to necessarily take into consideration the delay and latches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. This Court in the case of Tridip Kumar Dingal v State of W.B.4, has held to the following effect:

third parties have accrued in the meantime (vide State of M.P. v Bhailal Bhai[5], Moon Mills Ltd. v Industrial Court[6], and Bhoop Singh v UOI[7]. This principle applies even in case of an infringement of fundamental right (vide Tilokchand Motichand v H.B. Munshi[8], Durga Prashad v Chief Controller of Imports & Exports[9] and Rabindranath Bose v UOI10).

58. There is no upper limit and there is no lower limit as to when a person can approach a court. The question is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of facts before the court depending on and varying from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose.”

12. It is apposite to take note of the dicta laid down by this Court in Karnataka Power Corportion Ltd. v K. Thangappan11, whereunder it has been held that the High Court may refuse to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction if there is negligence or omissions on the part of the applicant to assert his right. It has been further held thereunder:

AIR 1964 SC 1006: (1964) 6 SCR 261 AIR 1967 SC 1450

(1874) 5 PC 221: 22 WR 492 Ltd. v. M.R. Meher and Maharashtra SRTC v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service13. Sir Barnes had stated: “Now, the doctrine of laches in courts of equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy either because the party has, by his conduct done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitation, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances always important in such cases are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy.”

8. It would be appropriate to note certain decisions of this Court in which this aspect has been dealt with in relation to Article 32 of the Constitution. It is apparent that what has been stated as regards that article would apply, a fortiori, to Article 226. It was observed in Rabindranath Bose v UOI14 that no relief can be given to the petitioner who without any reasonable explanation approaches this Court under Article 32 after inordinate delay. It was stated that though Article 32 is itself a guaranteed right, it does not follow from this that it was the intention of the Constitution-makers that this Court should disregard all principles and grant relief in petitions filed after inordinate delay.

9. It was stated in State of M.P. v Nandlal Jaiswal15, that the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not AIR 1969 SC 329 satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.”