4749.22wp

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

11 WRIT PETITION NO.4749 OF 2022

MANGLABAI SURYAKANT SHINDE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

….

Mr D. K. Thote, Advocate for petitioner;

Mr S. P. Tiwari, A.G.P. for respondents/State

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

AND

ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATE : 20th June, 2022

PER COURT:

1.

By this petition, the petitioner, who is a 42 years old lady

and whose two children have attained the age of majority, has put

forth prayer clauses (A) and (B), which read as under :-

“A)

For the writ of certiorari, order direction in the

nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or

direction and direct the respondents to appoint the

present petitioner on compassionate ground.

B)

Pending hearing and final disposal of the present

writ petition the respondents be directed by an

appropriate order, to appoint the present petitioner on

compassionate ground.”

2.

The petitioner’s father-in-law was the bread-earner, who

was employed with the Irrigation Department. He died on

4749.22wp

(2)

21/04/2008 while in service. The petitioner’s husband passed

away on 08/06/2008. The two children of the petitioner were

aged 6 years and 4 years, respectively, in June 2008. Both have

now attained adulthood by crossing the age of 18 years. A claim

for compassionate appointment was filed on 11/09/2009, which

was beyond limitation of one year from the date of the death of

the bread earner. The first representation made by the petitioner

was on 11/08/2010. A further representation was made after

seven years, on 05/07/2017. Yet another representation was made

on 30/10/2019 and the last representation was made on

14/12/2021.

3.

Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court has delivered an order on

28/02/2022, in Special Leave Petition (Civ.) No.3008/2022, filed

by Surjeet Singh Sahni Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,

in which it has been observed as under :-

“4.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that by

way of writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India as such the petitioner prayed for a

specific performance of Clause 12 of the Sale Deed

dated 19.09.2001. For the first time, the petitioner

made a representation for allotment of 10% plot as per

Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 in the

year 2010, i.e., after a period of 10 years from the date

of execution of the Sale Deed. Therefore, as such if the

4749.22wp

(3)

suit would have been filed for specific performance, the

same would have been barred by limitation. Despite the

above, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the

High Court and as observed hereinabove prayed for

specific performance of Clause 12 of the Sale Deed

dated 19.09.2001 being Writ Petition No.37443 of

2011, which was also filed after a period of 11 years

from the date of execution of the Sale Deed. Therefore,

as such when the earlier writ petition was filed in the

year 2011 which was also barred by delay and latches,

the High Court ought not to have entertained the same.

Instead, the High Court entertained the said writ

petition and directed the NOIDA to decide the

representation of the petitioner, which as such was

made after a period of 10 years, expeditiously and it

gave the fresh blood to the litigation, which otherwise

was barred by delay and latches. The High Court by

passing the order dated 07.04.2017 as such did not

realise and/or appreciated that the writ petition itself

was required to be dismissed on the ground of delay

and latches as the same was filed after a period of 11

years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed under

which the right was claimed. We have come across

number of such orders passed by the High Courts

directing the authorities to decide the representation