The principle of delay and laches can be used to dismiss a case without considering its merits if the delay in filing the case is significant and unjustified.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been filed by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order dated 30.05.1995, passed by the respondent no. 5 in departmental proceeding Case No. 2/1990 whereby the petitioner has been terminated from service. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 05.06.1996, passed by the respondent No. 4 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner, was dismissed and order of termination was sustained. The petitioner has also challenged the entire departmental proceedings.

3. At the outset, Ms. Ruchi Rampuria A.C. to Sr. S.C. II for the respondent-State raised a preliminary objection on the ground of delay and laches. She submits that the order of termination is of the year 1995 and the appeal was rejected way back in the year 1996 itself and the petitioner knocked the door of this Court in the year December, 2006. As such, this writ application should be dismissed without going into merits of the case.

4. Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner tries to impress this Court by submitting that the petitioner had filed a revision/memorial and the same has not been dismissed; as such he was under reasonable presumption that the moment his revision/memorial will be dismissed he can challenge the same before this Court.

He further submits that it is a very good case on merit, however admittedly; there is a delay more than 10 years from the date of appellate order. He relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Others, (2013) 1 SCC 353 and submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court held that State, especially a welfare State should not raise this type of ground and Court is also required to exercise judicial discretion.

Relevant Paragraph Nos. 12, 13 and 14 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted herein-below:

“12. The State, especially a welfare State which is governed by the rule of law, cannot arrogate itself to a status beyond one that is provided by the Constitution. Our Constitution is an organic and flexible one. Delay and laches is adopted as a mode of discretion to decline exercise of jurisdiction to grant relief. There is another facet. The Court is required to exercise judicial discretion. The said discretion is dependent on facts and circumstances of the cases. Delay and laches is one of the facets to deny exercise of discretion. It is not an absolute impediment. There can be mitigating factors, continuity of cause action, etc. That apart, if the whole thing shocks the judicial conscience, then the Court should exercise the discretion more so, when no third-party interest is involved. Thus analysed, the petition is not hit by the doctrine of delay and laches as the same is not a constitutional limitation, the cause of action is continuous and further the situation certainly shocks judicial conscience.

13. The question of condonation of delay is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of the facts of the case at hand, as the same vary from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the courts to exercise their powers under Article 226, nor is it that there can never be a case where the courts cannot interfere in a matter, after the passage of a certain length of time. There may be a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delay. Ultimately, it would be a matter within the discretion of the Court and such discretion, must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to defeat it. The validity of the party’s defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable.

14. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise