Ramjeet Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 834 of 2015

1. Ramjeet Ram S/O Shri Amar Sai Aged About 40 years R/O Village Badauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.)

2. The Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

3. Gram Panchayat Badauli, Through The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Badauli, District Surguja (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri A.K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 21/04/2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1.

Petitioner is challenging the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 15-7-2000 removing him from the post of Panchayat Karmi/ Panchayat Secretary. Thus, the cause of action for filing the present petition accrued on 15-7-2000. The petition is apparently filed after 15 years from the said date. The petitioner appears to have

moved a representation through the Panchayat Karmi Sangh as late as on 9th July, 2013 i.e. after more than a decade. 2.

In respect of delay and laches, the Supreme Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others v. T.T. Murali Babu1, after relying on its decision rendered in State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal2, held thus at para 15 & 16 : "15.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx "24. ... If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction."

Emphasis was laid on the principle of delay and laches stating that resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction at a belated stage is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in injustice.

16.

Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, (2014) 4 SCC 108 (1986) 4 SCC 566

"procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis." 3.

Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay and laches.

J u d g e Gowri