Inordinate delay in filing a Writ Petition, especially by a Judicial Officer, can lead to dismissal due to delay laches, emphasizing the need for vigilance in asserting legal rights.

ORDER :

P. Sam Koshy, J.

The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by respondent No.1 vide G.O.Ms.No.20, dated 02.04.2019, and also challenging the consequential order passed by respondent No.2 vide ORDER ROC.NO.731 & 1525/2016- Vigilance Cell, dated 09.04.2019, declaring it to be illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and wholly without jurisdiction.

2. Heard Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Law & Legislative Affairs appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Udaya Sri, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. There is no dispute of the impugned order having been served upon the petitioner promptly. Though the impugned order was served promptly in April, 2019, the instant Writ Petition has been filed on 30.10.2024 i.e. after a gap of more than 5½ years. When the matter was initially taken up for admission and upon the Bench putting up a query so far as the delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Writ Court, the petitioner took time to address the same and meanwhile filed an additional affidavit. In the additional affidavit, the petitioner has primarily put the blame for not filing the Writ Petition promptly upon the different Counsels she had approached and consulted; all of whom according to the petitioner did not co-operate in prompt filing of the petition. The additional ground that the petitioner has taken is also that of the financial distress she went into after having lost her employment and the effects of the Covid-19 Pandemic that took place during the period 2020-2022.

4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner in the additional affidavit has referred to a series of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the delay laches have to be considered more pragmatically and with a liberal view and also held that the delay or limitation in condone delay petitions or the requests should not be rigidly applied particularly when the petition pertains to enforcement of fundamental right or where the petitioner / litigant has been subjected to great injustice.

5. Having heard the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, admittedly considering the date of dismissal and the date of filing, there is a delay of more than 5½ years. 5½ years gap is not a small period for a person to agitate his / her grievance before any Court of law. What needs to be appreciated at this juncture is that the petitioner in the instant case was working as a Judicial Officer in the State of Telangana. The petitioner is a person who is fully aware of the rights and remedies available to her subsequent to the order of dismissal from service having been passed and she is also supposed to know law well. Therefore, the plea of ignorance and also not being aware of her legal remedies cannot be sustained.

6. From the explanation that has been given in the additional affidavit also, the first explanation provided is that after the impugned order having been served upon the petitioner and she having been dismissed from service with effect from 09.04.2019, she re-located herself and came to Hyderabad and started staying with her elderly parents. The further explanation so provided also shows that for the first time she approached an Advocate in January, 2022. This itself shows that for a period of around 3 years, she did not avail any legal recourse or supposed to avail legal recourse during the intervening period and now she is trying to take advantage of the Covid-19 Pandemic that took place in between. The Covid-19 Pandemic or for that matter the lockdown also was imposed roughly a