Back
MADHURESH PRASAD
Manoj Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Madhuresh Prasad, J.—The petitioner was appointed as Constable on 22.12.2008 in the Border Security Force. He proceeded on 15 days casual leave with effect from 22.08.2012. The leave was valid up to 09.09.2012.
2. The admitted position is that he has never returned after availing the leave up to 09.09.2012. In the meantime, he was served with a show-cause notice dated 14.01.2013, which fact is also admitted as per averment made in the writ petition. The petitioner has not responded to the show-cause notice by which he was specifically informed that the show-cause was being issued contemplating action under Sub-Section (2) of Sec 11 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 read with Rule 177 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969. The petitioner has not responded to the said show-cause notice also. Thereafter, an order has been issued under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 22 of the BSF Rules, 1969 and his name has been struck from the strength of the respondent-force by order dated 04.03.2013 (Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit).
3. It is in these aforesaid facts that the petitioner has awoken from slumber to file the instant writ petition in the year 2020 relying upon a representation said to
Delay in filing a writ petition can lead to dismissal if not adequately explained, emphasizing the principle that equity aids the vigilant.
Unexplained delays in seeking judicial relief can negate one’s entitlement to writs, asserting that legal aid favors the vigilant.
Inordinate delay in filing a Writ Petition, especially by a Judicial Officer, can lead to dismissal due to delay laches, emphasizing the need for vigilance in asserting legal rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
