SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Raj) 2033

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Jaipur Development Authority - Petitioner
Versus
Ram Kumar and others – Respondents
S.B. Writ Restoration Application No. 138 of 2019
Decided On : 01-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Praveen Kumar, DC, JDA, OIC, Present in Person

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan High Court - Restoration of Writ Petition - The applicant sought to recall the dismissal of a writ petition on grounds of delay in responding to court orders. Application was dismissed due to significant delays and non-specificity in compliance. Court emphasized the irresponsibility of legal representatives and the detrimental impact on state justice system. (Paras 1-8)

(B) Delay and Laches - The court reiterated that restoration applications must be timely and complaints of delay must be substantiated; vague affidavits do not meet legal expectations. (Paras 6-8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought restoration of a writ petition dismissed for non-compliance with earlier court directives regarding curing defects. The delay in responding was nearly five years, with the necessary affidavit filed only after additional requests.

Findings of Court:
The restoration application was dismissed due to excessive delays and failure to provide a specific, satisfactory reason for such delays; the inefficiency of the legal team was highlighted.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the unexplained delay justified the restoration of the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that delays and non-compliance directly affect the court's willingness to restore petitions, emphasizing accountability among legal representatives.

Result: Restoration application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. the application for restoration faced significant delays. (Para 1 , 5 , 6)
2. procedural non-compliance delays the application. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. vague affidavits hinder case progress. (Para 7)
4. dismissal based on precedent due to delay. (Para 8)
5. call for disciplinary action against inaction. (Para 9)

ORDER :

(Sameer Jain, J.)

By way of present restoration application (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14843/2014), the applicant is seeking recall of order dated 29.04.2015 passed by Deputy Registrar (Judicial), by which the writ petition was dismissed for non compliance of peremptory order dated 09.03.2015.

2. Vide order dated 01.05.2019, applicant was directed to file specific affidavit within two weeks showing the cause of delay for not curing out the defects within the stipulated time.

3. On 02.02.2023, an adjournment was sought.

4. On 20.02.2023, no one appeared.

5. In compliance of order dated 01.05.2019, the additional affidavit was filed only on 16.02.2023, that is after a delay of almost four years.

6. The present matter appears to be riddled with delay and laches. The writ petition was filed in the year 2014 wherein the petitioner was directed to cure the defects within a period of four weeks vide order dated 09.03.2015. For non-compliance of the same, Deputy Registrar (Judicial) dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 29.04.2015. Against the same, restoration application was filed after five years, i.e. in the year 2019.

7. The affidavit filed in compliance of order dated 01.05.2009 is also vague and non-specific. It is noted that despite of JDA having a battery of panel counsels and a dedicated Legal Cell under the leadership of Director Law, no promptness is displayed and the matters are kept pending for years altogether.

8. The present restoration application, being riddled with delay and laches, is dismissed, in view of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment of Union of India & Ors v. N Murugesan (Civil Appeal Nos. 2491-2492 of 2021; decided on 07.10.2021).

9. This court also direct Secretary, UDH, to look into the matter wherein such callous approach is undertaken by office holders of JDA and if deemed necessary, initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the erring officers because ultimately the State is made to suffer for inaction of the individuals.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top