JUDGMENT :

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to consider his daughter-in-law for job in Rajiv Gandhi Thermal Power Plant, Khedar.

2. The State of Haryana in 1984 declared a policy with respect to acquisition of land. As per said policy, the owners/family members of owners of the land were entitled to job in case of acquisition of their land. The land of the petitioner has been acquired in 1998 by Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (for short 'HVPNL') and was then transferred to Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (for short 'HPGCL') in July' 2009 for establishment of Rajiv Gandhi Thermal Power Project in Khedar, Hisar. On 21.07.2011 Chief Minister approved special scheme of employment to those individuals whose land measuring two acre or more was acquired. Collective share of the land acquired from petitioner's family comes out to be more than two acres. None of the family member's name was reflected in the list of land oustees.

3. Mr. Dr. D.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner has made representation dated 20.11.2024 before respondents claiming his case for employment.

4. A period of more than 28 years from the date of acquisition of land has passed away. This Court, at this belated stage, especially when there is no reasonable explanation for delay of more than two decades, cannot ask the State or its instrumentality to consider claim of petitioner for employment. The petitioner and his family members, as per their wisdom remained silent for quite a long time, possibly due to their disentitlement and at this belated stage they want to take advantage in one or another way.

5. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. Where illegality is manifest, it cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. State cannot deprive vested right because of a non-deliberate delay.

6. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court recently in 'Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others' 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551 has held that High Court ought to dismiss petition on the ground of delay and laches where there is no explanation of delay. An applicant who approaches the Court belatedly or in the other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by writ Courts. Delay defeats equity. High Court may refuse to invoke its writ jurisdiction if laxity on the part of applicant has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made to rekindle the lapsed cause of action. Multiple communications cannot create cause of action. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as below:

"9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if