Parmjit Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

 


   


   

!"#$ "%&'&#( )

)

*+



















 + 

 +





 

 * , -*)+
 * 

+ -   
  
 


  



   

 

 !
""""

* 

+ - .)/0 12 # $

  
 

 
  %

&&'(&&)


*  

+ 



 




#,-)&-#'
./ 
0#)1
2 !3
4  





 





-5-)&-##
 

&)-,&-#&


!
  & $

2





 !0+

  
 

#-##&-##
./ 
0#1
6
2
 




2



2 



 

  

    

 %



2



6


 !0 +



&)-,&-#&

2
  

 !0+


2 




6
%
 
!  

 %
2 


!  
 
 

#,-)&-#'
./ 
0#)1 , $


 
  

&)-,&-#&



 
 #,-)&-#'
2
 
 
2


$

 



 %


 

5
3



!%





*  7 8
!
  
% 
  %



/


!%3

  
3
!%
 


%3 9 No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. Where illegality is manifest, it cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. State cannot deprive vested right because of a nondeliberate %3 ' 
2
 
 

 
* 
 %3

3

 

          


%

6
* 
 






  

%3
 
2 
 


/ %

%3



% 
2



* 
!% %3




2

%







  !%
 
 


!
 

/   3 %
!3
2 
*  
%3

4 3
6
* 
3



 

2 
 



%/3


 



% 

%%2 


 


23


 
 

 %




 
 % %
  






$
%
/ 


 
 



!%2 :



       



   

               



 

   

       





 

  

     

       

    

            

  

  

         

  



   !  "       

  

 

    

     

  ##$    

 %   %





   

       

     

     

       !   

     



  

       

   %   

   



      

       



   

 

   

       

    

         

   



   &   

  

     

  

   



&    

     

    

          



    

 



 

'  

       



        

   

  &   

   

 

   

      

    

 

  

 

   



      

     

 





  %



  

        

        

 

  %       

     

 

      



 

 

    

 



 



       





  

        

    

    &   



  ##$

  

 

  

   

  

   



  ( 7.

Applying the aforesaid judgment, this Court finds that present case suffers from delay and laches. The petitioner joined as Sub Inspector on 27.03.2012. He filed representation before S.S.P, Barnala which came to be rejected in July' 2016. There is no explanation for delay in the instant case. The petitioner is attempting to revive lapsed cause of action. The present petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and accordingly dismissed.





 / * 

+ -2   ,--7&-&7

 ;

(   < (= )   * +,-