HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1002/2021

In

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2364/2021

Birbal Ram Meghwal S/o Shri Keshraram Meghwal, Aged About

55 Years, R/o Village Chhabado Ki Khari Tehsil Ratangarh,

District Churu (Raj.)

----Appellant

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary,

Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.

Director Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, IInd Floor, Block-

6, Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. H.V. Nandwana Advocate with Mr.

Narendra Kumar Saini Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Judgment

REPORTABLE

02/03/2022

Heard.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.09.2021

passed by the learned Single Judge by which petitioner’s writ

petition was dismissed on the ground of latches.

The order of the learned Single Judge shows that learned

Single Judge was not inclined to exercise his discretionary

jurisdiction in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India because the appellant had approached the

writ court by filling petition after 15 years and that too, without

(2 of 7)

[SAW-1002/2021]

giving any explanation whatsoever as to why he could not

approach the court for almost one and a half decades.

Though, the order of learned Single Judge does not show

that any other contention was raised before the learned Single

Judge, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at the

appellate stage, has sought to raise an issue that the order

against which the writ petition was filed gave a recurring cause of

action because the effect of the order was that in times to come,

the appellant’s benefit in terms of increments and all other

benefits to which he would have been entitled, but for the

impugned order, would have continued in his entire service. For

this purpose, he has placed reliance upon the decisions of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vidya Devi Versus State

of Himachal Pradesh And Others, (2020) Vol.2 Supreme

Court Cases 569, Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh And Another, (2021) Vol.1 Supreme

Court Cases 804 and Tukaram Kana Joshi And Others

through Power-of-Attorney Holder Versus Maharashtra

Industrial Development Corporation And Others, (2013)

Vol.1 Supreme Court Cases 353.

On the strength of the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel

would argue that it is not a rule of thumb that in every case where

petition suffers from delay and latches, writ remedy has to be

necessarily declined. He would submit that where third party

interest is not involved and the nature of injustice to which a

person has been subjected over-weighs delay, matter ought to be

examined on merits rather than dismissing the petition on the

ground of delay.

(3 of 7)

[SAW-1002/2021]

Another submission made before this court is that the

appellant has a very good case on merits as the impugned order

suffers from violation of principles of natural justice, discrimination

and the appellant having very strong case on merits in view of the

law laid down by this Court in the cases of Kailsah Chand Sethi

Verus State of Rajasthan And Others, 1993 (3) Western

Law Cases (Raj.) 188, Mohan Lal Meena, deceased through

L.Rs. Versus State of Raj. & Anr., 1996 (1) RLR 479 and

Mohan Lal Bairwa Versus The State of Rajasthan and

Others, 2010 Supreme Court Cases Online Raj 718, for

additional reasons, learned Single Judge instead of throwing the

petition on the ground of delay and latches ought to have

entertained the same on merits ignoring delay.

We find that most of the arguments which have been

advanced before this Court were not raised before the learned

Single Judge because it is not reflected from the order of the

learned S