High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/14404/2026dismissed

Constable Kuldeep Singh And Another v. State Of Punjab And Others

2026-05-08Mr. Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa11 pages

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

!"# #

$%&'

) #

( ,-

* . .- *

!"# !# ,

&#! -# ), .-/, )

00000

.-/* 0 1

!!,

4# "

8, 3!

2#!4#

4!+

.!!4 !4

) 4

( (4

3 !

(!!"

.!!4 !4

) -+

3 !

3 ! ,

3 !

!;# 4 "< 9#

#<!4 4

#<!4

= !(!

+ 9# ,

! 3!

+! ((!3! "!3!"

! (! 4 ! 4 4

< +!

! = !!

((!3!

"!3!"

! (! ! !+ ) -+

((!3!

- >

2!#

) -+

+# 4#,

, <

! 4!3

!+ "# !(+!

&!"# 1(+! -4, 5

# !( (

-4

< !(+! 2 !

1 !"#

!(+! !

-4,

" !4

, 2# !,

4!+!"

.!!4 !4

! ! -

4!! 2 ;

3 !

" !4

> 2!# ! 4!

" !4

2!#!

! +# (+

! !(!

4 <

1 4+ !4

3 !

!!, 5

8, 2# <,

4!+

4! .!!4

) 4 -""!

3 !

4 !"

# (4

"!3

4 ! 4 4

!+ !

((!3! @

3 !

2 = ! "!3!"

((!3!

! !, 4#,

;!"

((!3! 2 4< 2 @ 4 ,

.!!4 !4

2!#

(( 4 (+ ! 4# +

.!!4

4 !"

+! < # (4

((!3! "!3!"

(! 4 ! 4 !+ ) -+

.!!4 !4

4!3 <

"!3

(! !

!+ ) -+

44!"<,

)

( # +!

!(+!

-4

< < ! !!!

!+ -,

5 < (+

! !+ ,

!+!

< 4#

4 !"

"# #3

4 2!# !

! !

3 ! 2 !

+# 4#,

"# !(+!

-4

(! !+

" !4

9# ,

#! ! 4!

" !4

2#!4# 2 !

2!# ! 4!

" !4

2!#!

! +# (+

! !(!

4 <

2 #2

5 < (+

) -+

#! <

!+ 2#!4# 2 !

!4 !(4<

7 ! #

"!3

< 4#!"

#! 1 !

;!"

!(+!

-4

+!!"

!4 A ! 4

< 1 !

!( ! 4! ! "!3

!4 A !,

< ! 4

4# 4 , ( #

4! !

1 !

2 2#

! !!

(!!"

!!,

# !!<

! -

2 #2

7 ! #

"!3

;4;!"

< +

In State of M.P. and others vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and others, (1986) 4 SCC 566, the Supreme Court has held that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and that the High Court in the exercise of its discretionary power would not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there was inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing of the 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. The relevant extract of the judgment in Nandlal Jaiswal's case (supra) reads as under:- "24.

Now, it is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic.

intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The evolution of this rule of laches or delay is premised upon a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices. The rights of third parties may intervene and if the writ jurisdiction is exercised on a writ petition filed after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties.

When the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meanwhile is an important factor which always weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. We do not think it necessary to burden this judgment with reference to various decisions of this Court where it has been emphasised time and again that where there is inordinate and unexplained delay and third party rights are created in the intervening period, the High Court would decline to interfere, even if the State action complained of is unconstitutional or illegal. We may only mention in the passing two decisions of this Court one in Ramanna Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979)3 SCR 1014 and the other in Ashok Kumar v.

Collector, Raipur, (1980)1 SCR 491. We may point out that in R.D. Shetty's case (supra), even though the State action was held to be unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, this Court refused to grant relief to the petitioner on the ground that the writ petition had been filed by the petitioner more than five months after the acceptance of the tender of the fourth respondent and during that period, the fourth respondent had incurred considerable expenditure, aggregating to about Rs.1.25 lakhs, in making arrangements for putting up the restaurant and the snack bar.

Of course, this rule of laches or delay is not a rigid rule which can be cast in a straitjacket formula, for there may be cases where despite delay and creation of third party rights the High Court may still in the exercise of its discretion interfere and grant relief to the petitioner. But such cases where the demand of justice is so compelling that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delay or creation of third party rights would by their very nature be few and far between.

must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to defeat it."

In New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Pan Singh and others, (2007) 9 SCC 278, the Supreme Court held that though there is no period of limitation provided for filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time and that discretionary relief may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the Court after a long time especially when there is no explanation offered for such delay. Relevant paragraphs of Pan Singh's case (supra) are reproduced below:- "15. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. Respondents herein filed a Writ Petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity.

They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cutoff date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the Writ Petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the Court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction.

16. Although, there is no period of limitation provided for filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, Writ Petition should be filed within a reasonable time."

& !4

! 4

) "+

!" '$2 1 '# '!2 0 3&* .0% .2%42 '.%'522 '# 0% '#!2 0&6 .78/# $%# # !'6*)*62# ! 2 # ! 4! 4+

( !#!"

( # 4

4! 3!

2!"

& 3

! !

"##

$%&

! " ""#!

'( )

! *' +

/ $ %

& ' ( " "

)*+ " #*!! 0 !

0 ( 1 2

3 3 4

3 '

6 5

8 !

' ( ,-

. / 0 &

1 2

' ..

")+

3!! 0

9 4

&& ,

1 1 "**) 3

&& 5 0'01 , ("** 3 #)* : 6 7 1 / &1

!"" )"+""

3) !! '

() 0

& / 8 "**"

+"**) #3

%%:!

::%%" & 7

&1 )

)+ ) " "3)! 0 ! ;

! *'

;

. 4

< / 0

3 %

; ; !

01 9& / 110 '&1

" "

" *: * "#

3" "# 7 -

0 . 0 ,

&) ":) * )!! 0

< ""9 0

" >

'( )

, & &- 1 70 "*)# " "#!!

< ""9

9;!"

! 4!

! !(4<

7 ! !

"!3

4#!"

#! !!

< +

(

2 !

2 @C

, 2!# "!"

4 ,

! !+!

< 4#

+!4 !4! , !( <,

(

.- )*+* &+

!"#

# ;!"

# &