Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J
Sudershan S/o Shri Vridhichand Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Order :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned orders dated 07.06.2002, 17.02.2003 and 19.05.2004 passed by the respondents.
2. By passing the impugned order dated 07.06.2002, the petitioner has been punished with a penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect, by the respondents in exercise of the powers contained under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules , 1958 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1958’).
3. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal as well as a review petition was submitted by the petitioner before the Appellate and Re-viewing Authority, however both were rejected by the respective authorities vide impugned orders dated 17.02.2003 and 19.05.2004 respectively.
4. It appears that the petitioner was sleeping over the matter for more than two decades and all of sudden, he woke up after twenty years and approached this Court without giving any plausible explanation in the instant writ petition about the aforesaid in-ordinate delay.
5. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Anr., reported in (2015
The doctrine of delay and laches bars stale claims in writ petitions, emphasizing timely action for relief.
Point of Law : Doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in ....
Inordinate delay in seeking relief can bar a petition under Article 226, emphasizing the principle of laches and the need for timely action by litigants.
Point of Law : Limitation - Delay/Latches - Doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity cannot be said to be a technical doctrine and has to be examined on peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. D....
Delay in seeking relief does not preclude fundamental rights claims, emphasizing the need for equitable judicial intervention in employment termination cases.
Inordinate delay in filing appeal lacks satisfactory explanation, mandating dismissal under principles of delay and laches, emphasizing that delay defeats equity.
Delay and laches bar relief in writ jurisdiction as per established legal principles.
A claimant is barred from seeking relief under Article 226 due to inordinate delay and laches, which denies any revival of stale claims.
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
