Ashok Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Others
!
"
!
#$
$
$% &&&&& !
"
# $$% $$& # ' (
) ( )
*
+
#
, -#,.
/0 /% $//1 -2 3!.
/! !/ $//1 -2 34.
( 5 +)
#, + /! /6 $//0 4! /4 $//1
"
2 +)
*
(
+ 2
$ "
+ +
#, /0 /% $//1
+)
( (
" +)
++ /! !/ $//1 -2 34.
" (
(+
$//1 )
+ +
+ "
$0 /8 $/!/ -2 38. (
# -9
.
+ +) ' + (
$8 !$ $/$6 -2 3%.
+ ( ( :
#++
+ -9
.
" 7+ 7
( (
+
) 2
# '
( # -#.
+
*
+) (
+ 2 " +
2
"
++
$//1
$/!/ ; #
$/$8
( 2 "
2 + +
' % 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. 7.
39
5( + #
! ! " " #!#
! " " "
" !
# " " " $ " % & " '
" " " "" $ % " & '
( )* " " + , """" -
" #
.
/
+
39
5( + #
() '% '% & * + !# , - " .#!%
+
(
+ 2
+
+ (
( * 0 & #
#
+ ! ! "
, 9.
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court recently in the case of 'Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others' 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551 has held that High Court ought to dismiss petition on the ground of delay and laches where there is no explanation of delay. An applicant who approaches the Court belatedly or in the other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by writ Courts. Delay defeats equity. High Court may refuse to invoke its writ jurisdiction if laxity on the part of applicant has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made to rekindle the lapsed cause of action. Multiple communications cannot create cause of action. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as below:
1 -
" "
" 2
"
"
" "
"&
! " 3 + 4 " - "! "
-
& ! " !
"
"
+ &
)5 3 ! " "
" " ! ""
3
" & ! #
#&
" 3 ! "
"
)) $ " !
-" " ! # " &
"" &
"
"
2
"
-
"
&
" " "
" !
(
#
- "
& " , 11.
A perusal of the averments mentioned in the instant petition clearly show that no reasonable or plausible explanation has been furnished by the petitioner to condone the huge delay of 16 years. This Court is unable to find any cogent or satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay occasioned in the present case. The dispute has been brought before this Court after the lapse of almost 16 long years. The petitioner, by way of the instant petition, is seeking to resuscitate and revive a cause of action which has long since become stale and extinguished by efflux of time. It is well settled principles of law that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to reopen issues which stands concluded by delay, laches or acquiescence on the part of the litigant. Equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber over their rights. Permitting the petitioner to re-agitate such a belated claim would defeat the principles of finality in litigation and unsettle rights thereby causing serious prejudice to the opposite party. 12.
In the absence of any plausible justification or bona fide explanation for such prolonged inaction, this Court is constrained to hold that the present petition is barred by delay and laches. The petitioner cannot be permitted to rekindle a lapsed cause of action or seek indulgence of this Court after having remained supine and indifferent for such an inordinate period. Further, it is an established maxim of law that interest reipublicae ut sit finislitim - it is in the interest of the State that there be an end to litigation. Permitting the petitioner to revive such a dead cause of action would amount to rewarding indolence and would open floodgates for belated and speculative litigation.
13.
In the absence of any satisfactory much less plausible justification for the prolonged silence of the petitioner and inaction, this Court is constrained to hold that the instant petition is barred by delay and laches. Accordingly, the attempt to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court after an inordinate delay of 16 years is wholly misconceived and the same cannot be entertained.
14.
In view of the above, the present petition is bereft of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
15.
Ordered accordingly.
) $*
& 6 ( 7 68 ( 7 68