Chander Pal And ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS













 






 









 

 




!"#"$%
& '& 


( $ )

*
$
 ()#









+

"

"$)#
,)#-#


.



 )/ $
$
 ()#









+
#0$ $ #

 1%

 23
1 &
 .
4 .
1

5


 .










 23
1 &
 .



335
 

Present:

Mr. Rajeev Sharma (Raju), Advocate, for the petitioners.

***
.
1

5

 .
(Oral)
By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged notification dated 06.07.2015, whereby the village in question was included within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Sonepat.
2.

When confronted with the observations with respect to inordinate delay and laches in filing the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners approached this Court at an earlier point of time by filing a writ petition, bearing CWP No. 26021 of 2018, which was disposed of by issuing directions to decide legal notice dated 22.8.2018 expeditiously and in pursuance thereof, representation of the petitioners has been rejected on 25.02.2019, and therefore, the petition cannot be said to be barred by delay and laches. This argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is totally misconceived.

 3.

Hon'ble Apex Court in
     

    while considering an identical issue has held as under:7
                                            
     

               

            

                     

                     

                              !

                       "       

            !

                   

   

       #       

    $                 %         

         

 &  4.

Admittedly in the case in hand the cause of action accrued to the petitioner when the notification dated 06.07.2015 was issued. Civil Writ Petition No. 26021 of 2018 challenging the said notification was filed in the year 2018 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court without examining the issue on7merits with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the legal notice dated 22.08.2018 expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

 5.

In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, the representation/legal notice of the petitioner came to be rejected by the authorities vide order dated 25.02.2019. In the garb of challenging the order dated 25.02.2019, as a matter of fact when the real challenge is to the notification dated 06.05.2015 whereby the village in question was included within the municipal limits against which the petitioner is aggrieved, this petition cannot held to have been filed without any laches. The cause of action actually accrued to the petitioner when the said notification was issued and the fact that a decision has been obtained on the representation in pursuance to an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action.

6.

As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case 

   

 the issue of limitation or delay in latches ought to be considered with reference to the original cause of action and from that view this petition is heavily barred by latches and the explanation of having made the representation in pursuance to an order of this Court cannot constitute a ground to condone the same and entertain the petition. The petition accordingly stands dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

.
1

7

 .



6


337
 
0)"*
5
 
AK Sharma/ravinder



Whether speaking / reasoned:

√YES
Whether Reportable:

√NO