Rajiv Kumar v. Director I T B P And ORS

r / $-19 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ 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

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAY ANT 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 of refnoval from service which is dated 28.11.1997. The petitioner has approached this Court after almost 20 years. Such hopelessly belated writ petition cannot be entertained.

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 of the Constitution of India. In any case, there is no cogent By:AMULYA iJii'iMilMliltiM

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 of the 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 all connected applications are dismissed. INDIRA BANERJEE, J JAYANT NATH,J DECEMBER 21, 2016/mw -■vAI