Delay and laches can bar a petitioner from seeking redress, and the court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to accord the benefit of rehabilitation of recruitment to the petitioner by providing job in accordance with B.P.(Per) (FB) No.3 dated 25.1.1990 and G.O.Ms.No.656 issued by Labour and Employment Department dated 29.6.1978.)

1. The Writ of Mandamus has been filed to direct the respondents to accord the benefit of rehabilitation of recruitment to the petitioner by providing job in accordance with B.P.(Per)(FB)No.3, dated 25.01.1990 and G.O.Ms.No.656, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.06.1978, within a stipulated time.

2. The petitioner states that the agricultural land owned by the family of the writ petitioner was acquired for development of Thermal Power Station. The family of the writ petitioner lost the agricultural land and consequently, they were living in penurious circumstances. The similarly placed affected persons approached the Government and the respondents made a promise that employment will be provided to the land losers on account of the said Thermal Power Project. Though an assurance was provided to the land losers during the relevant point of time, the case of the writ petitioner was not considered and many other similarly placed persons were also left out.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the respondents have not provided any intimation to the land losers regarding the opportunity of employment to be provided. The petitioner is an illiterate person and she was not aware of the developments occurred subsequently in the matter of providing employment to the families of the land losers. Thus, she could not able to approach the respondents immediately and even now, she is in indigent circumstances and therefore, her case is to be considered for appointment under priority category of land losers, as per the assurance given by the respondents during the acquisition of land for developing the Thermal Power Project.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the delay cannot be held against the writ petitioner as she approached the respondents by submitting representations. The other similarly placed persons earlier filed Writ Petitions in W.P.No.13789 of 2011, etc., and this Court has directed the the District Collector to commence enumeration process and accordingly consider their cases. Pursuant to the said order, enumeration process was conducted and appointments were granted. Thus, the same benefit is to be extended to the petitioner also.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 objected the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating that the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of laches. The land was acquired in the year 1992 and the land losers were considered for providing employment and appointments were given in the year 1999 itself. The petitioner, if at all eligible, ought to have approached the respondents during the relevant point of time. The learned counsel reiterated that the petitioner submitted a representation through her counsel only on 23.12.2014, after a lapse of about 22 years from the acquisition of the land. Thus, the case of the writ petitioner cannot be considered. Even the records cannot be verified now after a lapse of many years. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected.

6. Subsequent to the order passed in W.P.No.13789 of 2011, other similarly placed persons filed Writ Petitions based on the directions issued by this Court to conduct the enumeration process. The said order was followed and thereafter a Writ Appeal was filed, wherein an interim order was granted. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner replied by stating that as far as the order dated 22.09.2011 is concerned, it became final.

7. Considering the arguments, this Court is of the opinion that regarding the delay and la