The main legal point established is the application of the principles of delay and laches under the Limitation Act, 1963, and the doctrine of strict liability under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, in determining the maintainability of the petition and the liability of the respondent.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) BEFORE deciding the main issue, the preliminary issue, whether the writ petition suffers from gross delay and laches, and on account thereof is not maintainable needs to be decided at the first instance.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS are the parents of late Sanjay Kumar who died at the young age of 24 years. On the fateful day, 24. 8. 95, at about 8 A. M. when the deceased was in the process of parking his tempo, live wire from an electricity pole touched the vehicle of the deceased and as a result thereof deceased was electrocuted.

( 3 ) PRESENT petition was filed on 10. 11. 2000 i. e. after a gap of 5 years and approximately 3 months.

( 4 ) EXPLAINING the delay, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners had earlier on filed a claim petition before the District consumer Forum, being Claim Petition No. 413/97. Proceedings dragged on before the said forum till the year 1999. Complaint was withdrawn on 5. 8. 1999 with liberty to file a petition in an appropriate court. Thereafter, petitioners moved the National Human Rights Commission vide a complaint dated 31. 5. 2000. On 30. 6. 2000 the complaint was dismissed. Thereafter, in the month of November, 2000 the present petition was filed.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the period spent by the petitioners in prosecuting the petition before the District Consumer Forum has to be taken note of while considering the issue of delay and laches. Counsel urged that the petitioners were bona fide litigating before the District consumer Forum.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent urged that objection was raised before the District Consumer Forum by the respondents when the reply was filed in the year 1997 to the effect that the Consumer Court had no jurisdiction. In spite thereof, petitioners continued with the litigation. Counsel urged that the claim petition was ultimately withdrawn by the petitioners in the year 1999.

( 7 ) IT is true, and as has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme court in the decision reported as AIR 1993 SC 802 M/s. Dehri Rohtas Light railway Company Limited Vs. District Board, Bhojpur and Ors. the rule which says that the court may not inquire into belated and stale claim is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion. Each case must depend upon its own facts; it will all depend on what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and how the delay arose, but where the delay is enormous, additional consideration from the point of view of limitation, if civil suit was to be filed, has to be taken note of as was observed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as AIR 1964 SC 1006 State of M. P. Vs. Bhailal Bhai. (see para 21) It was observed as under :-"learned counsel is right in his submission that the provisions of the limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Article 226. It appears to us however that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured. This court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy, but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the court to hold that it is unreasonable. "

( 8 ) BUT, principles enshrined under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would also guide this court while deciding on the issue of delay and laches. Under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 when a party has been bona fide pursuing a wrong remedy, it would be a fit case for applying the principle that while computing limitation, period spent in prosecution of a proceeding before a wrong court should be excluded.

( 9 ) PETITIONERS were guided by their counsel when

Click Here to Read the rest of this document