Advocates:
['RAJESH NAGARKOTI', '', 'VISHAL SINGH MAHARA', 'HARSHIT SANWAL', 'PANKAJ KAPIL', 'C S C', 'SHOBHIT SAHARIA']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Special Appeal No.112 of 2020

Satye Singh & others

… Appellants.

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others

.. Respondents.

Dated: 8^th July, 2020

Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.

Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral)

Heard Sri Harshit Sanwal, learned Counsel for the appellants,

Sri K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State

Government and Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned Standing Counsel for

the THDC.

2.

This intra-court appeal is preferred by the petitioners in Writ

Petition (M/S) No. 498 of 2020 aggrieved by the order passed by the

learned Single Judge on 26.02.2020 dismissing the writ petition on the

ground of delay.

3.

The appellants-writ petitioners approached this Court by way of

the writ petition on 15.02.2020 questioning the order passed by the

third respondent dated 27.12.2005 cancelling the eligibility of the

appellants-writ petitioners for rehabilitation, and the subsequent order

dated 29.1.2008 passed by the Director (Rehabilitation), Grievance

Redressal Forum, Tehri Dam Project. They sought a direction to the

respondents to grant the appellants-writ petitioners the benefit of

rehabilitation in terms of the rehabilitation scheme.

4.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed

that the order passed by the Director (Rehabilitation) in the year 2005,

and by the Grievance Redressal Cell in the year 2008, suffered from

inordinate delay and laches; and, as there was no satisfactory

explanation for the delay, he was not inclined to entertain the writ

petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.

5.

The orders impugned in the writ petition were passed 12 and 14

years before the appellant-writ petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of

this Court.

6.

When we asked the learned counsel what explanation was

furnished, in the writ petition, for the inordinate delay of 12 and 14

years, Sri Harshit Sanwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, would

draw our attention to Paragraph Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of the writ affidavit,

wherein it is stated that the order dated 29.1.2008 was never

communicated to the petitioners; it is recently, on an enquiry

regarding the status of allotment of the petitioners, that they were

informed that they still had not been included in the eligibility list, and

they were not entitled for allotment or any other benefits; on further

enquiry, they became aware of the passage of the impugned order

rejecting their genuine claim; they had approached the respondents

several times enquiring about the adjudication of their claim for

rehabilitation; they were always informed that no decision had been

arrived at; they were not negligent, and had made due enquiries; the

delay in preferring the writ petition was neither deliberate nor

intentional; and they became aware of the order only in January, 2020.

7.

The writ affidavit is bereft of even the basic particulars as to

whom the petitioners had approached and when. It is also not stated

as to how and when the petitioners received both these orders, copies

of which have been filed along with the writ petition. Such bald and

vague assertions in the writ affidavit do not constitute sufficient

explanation for the inordinate delay in invoking the jurisdiction of this

Court.

8.

In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and others

(1986) 4 SCC 566, the Supreme Court observed:

<…….it is well settled that the power of the

High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article

226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High

Court in the exercise of its discretion does not

ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent of the

acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate

delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ

petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained,

the High Court may decline to inte