Skip to content


Kanhaiya Lal Purohit Vs. the District and Sessions Judge and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 370 of 1984
Judge
Reported in1985WLN(UC)429
AppellantKanhaiya Lal Purohit
RespondentThe District and Sessions Judge and ors.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
constitution of india - article 226--writ--delay of 3 years--repeated representations made by petitioner and rejected by high court--held, delay is not explained;if the appellant went on making repeated representations which were also rejected by the high court, it cannot be held that the delay made in approaching the high court under article 226 of the constitution was properly explained.;appeal dismissed. - - the principle is well settled that a person seeking relief in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court should approach the court at the earliest possible opportunity and without any avoidable delay......1984. the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground of delay.2. learned counsel urged that the learned single judge was not right in holding that the representation was rejected by the high court on february 17, 1983, because on that day the appellant's representation was rejected by the district & sessions judge, banswara. as we have already pointed out above, the earliest representation made by the appellant was rejected by the high court on march 25, 1981. his repeated representations could not extend the period for the appellant's approaching this court under article 226 of the constitution of india. the principle is well settled that a person seeking relief in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court should approach the court at the.....
Judgment:

Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.

1. The appellant was removed from Government service by the order of the District and Sessions Judge, Banswara dated June 6, 1980 with effect from the same date. A representation in the form of an appeal submitted by the appellant to the Rajasthan High Court was rejected on March 25, 1981. A further representation made by the appellant was again rejected by the High Court on August 24,1981. Yet another representation preferred by the petitioner appellant was again rejected by the High Court on August 19, 1982. Thus, the appellant went on making repeated representation which were rejected. He also made a mercy petition which was rejected by the High Court on February 25, 1984. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground of delay.

2. Learned counsel urged that the learned Single Judge was not right in holding that the representation was rejected by the High Court on February 17, 1983, because on that day the appellant's representation was rejected by the District & Sessions Judge, Banswara. As we have already pointed out above, the earliest representation made by the appellant was rejected by the High Court on March 25, 1981. His repeated representations could not extend the period for the appellant's approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The principle is well settled that a person seeking relief in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court should approach the court at the earliest possible opportunity and without any avoidable delay. If the appellant went on making repeated representations which were also rejected by the High Court, it cannot be held that the delay made in approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was property explained.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner appellant relied upon a circular issued by the State Government dated October 21, 1981, which was said to be the basis of making further representations. But the learned counsel was unable to show as to how the said circular dated October 21, 1981 was applicable to the case of the appellant. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellant's services were regularised at any time prior to March 31, 1980, so as to attract the provisions of clause 8 of the Circular dated October 21, 1981. As the circular was not applicable to the case of the appellant, all further representations made by him on the basis thereof were of no avail.

4. The learned Single Judge, in his discretion, refused to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner after a long delay. We do not consider that the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge in this case is in any way arbitrary or improper. Not only that the representation of the appellant was rejected on August 19,1982 but his earlier representations were rejected by the High Court on August 24, 1981 and even as early as on 25th March 1981. The appellant would have approached this Court soon after the rejection of his first representation on March 25, 1981. The present writ petition was filed in this Court on August 14, 1984 more than 3 years after the rejection of the appellant's representation to the High Court. We are unable to hold that the delay in filing the writ petition has been properly explained by the appellant. Merely because he continued to make repeated representations which were rejected in their turn, cannot be considered as sufficient to explain the laches in filing the writ petition. The writ petition having been filed after unexplained delay, the learned Single Judge was justified in refusing to entertain the same.

5. We fined no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //