Full Text
Translation output
r / $-19 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)11951/2016&CM No.47092/2016
RAJIV KUMAR Petitioner
Through Mr.Girraj Singh,proxy counsel
W.P.(C)11951/2016&CM No.47092/2016
RAJIV KUMAR Petitioner
Through Mr.Girraj Singh,proxy counsel
VERSUS
DIRECTOR I T B P AND ORS Respondents
Through Mr.Arun Bhardwaj,CGSC with Mr.Nishant Yadav,Advocates
Through Mr.Arun Bhardwaj,CGSC with Mr.Nishant Yadav,Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
ORDER o/o 21.12.2016 The prayer for adjournment made on behalf of the petitioner is refused.
This writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging an order ofrefnoval from service which is dated 28.11.1997. The petitioner has approached this Court after almost 20 years. Such hopelessly belated writpetition cannotbeentertained.
There is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to petitions under
Article 226 ofthe Constitution ofIndia. In any case, there is no cogent
2016:DHC:9314-DB w explanation for the delay of almost 20 years in approaching this Court.
Even assuming that the petitioner has been acquitted by the Criminal
Court in proceedings for theft initiated against him that in itself is no ground for reinstatement ofthe petitioner after 20 years. There is no such infirmity in the proceedings against the petitioner which calls for interference at this belated stage.
The writ petition and allconnected applications are dismissed.
INDIRA BANERJEE,J JAYANT NATH,J DECEMBER 21,2016/mw
-■vAI
2016:DHC:9314-DB
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
ORDER o/o 21.12.2016 The prayer for adjournment made on behalf of the petitioner is refused.
This writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging an order ofrefnoval from service which is dated 28.11.1997. The petitioner has approached this Court after almost 20 years. Such hopelessly belated writpetition cannotbeentertained.
There is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to petitions under
Article 226 ofthe Constitution ofIndia. In any case, there is no cogent
2016:DHC:9314-DB w explanation for the delay of almost 20 years in approaching this Court.
Even assuming that the petitioner has been acquitted by the Criminal
Court in proceedings for theft initiated against him that in itself is no ground for reinstatement ofthe petitioner after 20 years. There is no such infirmity in the proceedings against the petitioner which calls for interference at this belated stage.
The writ petition and allconnected applications are dismissed.
INDIRA BANERJEE,J JAYANT NATH,J DECEMBER 21,2016/mw
-■vAI
2016:DHC:9314-DB
JUDGMENT