Inordinate delay in filing a recall application cannot be condoned on the grounds of a communication gap with counsel, as the doctrine of delay and laches precludes relief for indolent litigants who fail to provide a justifiable explanation for such delay.

O R D E R

Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-J

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

2. Applicant- Rabbul Hussain has filed delay condonation application to condone the delay in filing of the recall application No. 2151 of 2024. In the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, it has been pleaded that due to an F.I.R. lodged on 31.03.1997 against applicant, he was sent in Jail, hence, he could not approach his counsel and to this applicant or his counsel could not appear before this Hon’ble Tribunal. After acquittal in criminal case, applicant was reinstated in service in the year 2015. Due to change of address of his counsel, he did not know about the progress of his case. When he met with his counsel in the month of April 2024, applicant came to know that his case was dismissed in default in the year 2003. After advice of his counsel, he has filed recall application on 12.08.2024. The alleged delay is only due to non-communication with his counsel. Legal right cannot be defeated on the ground of delay.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties by filing their objections, inter-alia, stated that this recall application is highly barred by limitation. It has been further pleaded that applicant filed this recall application after nearly more than 21 years after the order and the grounds taken by the applicant for this delay has not been explained justifiably, hence, this delay condonation application as well as recall application are liable to be rejected with heavy cost.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that alleged delay in filing of the recall application is neither deliberate nor intentional; hence, delay should be condoned.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently opposed the delay condonation application.

6. In the case of Chennai Metropolitan water supply and Sewerage Board and others Vs. T.T Murali Babu , (2014) 4 SCC 108, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

“15. In State of M.P. and others etc. etc. v. Nandlal Jaiswal and others etc. etc. the Court observed that it is well settled that power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. It has been further stated therein that if there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Emphasis was laid on the principle of delay and laches stating that resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction at a belated stage is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in injustice.

16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain