Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA, C.J, RANJAN SHARMA
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Naik Suresh Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ, Ranjan Sharma, J.
1. This order will dispose of four Writ Petitions filed by Union of India, where the challenge has been made to the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, Regional Circuit Bench at Shimla.
2. The relief has been granted to the petitioners before the Tribunal way back on 20.05.2022 in the first case, the subject matters of challenge in CWP No. 2535 of 2025. Similarly, a challenge in CWP No. 2338 of 2025 titled as Union of India & Ors. vs. Ex. Naik Suresh Kumar, the Tribunal decided the matter on 24.08.2022. In CWP No. 2522 of 2025 titled as Union of India & Ors. vs. Pawna Devi, the Armed Forces Tribunal decided on 04.11.2022, is also similar to the decision passed in November, 2022 challenged in CWP No. 2545 of 2025 titled as Union of India & Ors. vs. Ex. Sep Rewal Singh.
3. The writ petitions by the Union of India have been filed in January and February 2025. We are not deciding the issue on merits in these set of cases. We are primarily concerned with the issue of delay in filing these petitions. We would take the facts from Union of India while taking up case of Pawna Devi in CWP No.2522 of 2025 to notice that the cl
The Union of India cannot challenge tribunal orders after significant delay without valid justification, emphasizing the importance of timely legal action.
The court emphasized that the law of limitation applies equally to all parties, including the government, and failure to act within a reasonable time results in dismissal of claims.
The Union of India cannot challenge orders after significant delays, as parties develop vested rights, and such delays amount to gross negligence.
The principle of delay and laches applies to dismiss a writ petition filed after an unreasonable delay, emphasizing the need for timely legal action.
Delay/Latches/Limitation - Latches of 1267 days in filing petition – Latches have not been sufficiently explained - It clear that for almost two years and ten months matter was not at all pursued, ev....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and extraordinary, and should not....
Administrative lethargy and bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delays by state in filing appeals; bona fides and vigilance required.
“unavoidable” and “unspoken” circumstances cannot be taken shelter of to claim condonation of delay in approaching the Courts. In fact the course adopted by the State in preferring the review petitio....
Unexplained delays in filing writ petitions lead to dismissal, emphasizing the need for government departments to act diligently and provide reasonable justifications for delays.
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
