LexEX. CAPT. HARISH UPPAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
EX. CAPT. HARISH UPPAL
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
MARCH 30, 1994
B
{B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.J
Constitution of India 195(}-Article 226-Laches-Order rejecting post-
confinnation petition challenged ten years later-Held, petition liable to be
dismissed for lache;~Jmpugned order of rejection sent by registered post not
C received back-Held, order was duly communicated-No inteiference called
for.
Practice and Procedure-Writ Petition-Laches--Whether in granting
petitioner the relief, whether any other person's rights affected-Held, in
detennining /aches this is not the only consideration that a coult will take into
D account-ff parties choose to sleep over their rights and remedies for an
inordinately long time, the court may well decline to inteifere in its discretion-
ary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
E
F
Limitation Act, 1963-Policy underlying-Explained.
In respect of certain irregularities committed by the petitioner,
during military operations at Bangladesh in Decemeber, 1971 a court
martial was held at which he was found guilty and was awarded the
punishment of dismissal and two years' rigorous imprisonment. While the
petitioner was in prison, his advocate sent a post-confirmation petition
under s. 164(2) of the Army Act, 1950.
While dismissing his writ petition in November, 1985, the Supreme
Court directed that the post-confirmation petition may be disposed of and
the order communicated to the petitioner if this was not already done.
G Claiming that he received the rejection order only thereafter, the petitioner
challenged the same by way of a writ petition which was dismissed by the
High Court inter alia on the ground that the petition was highly belated.
Against this, the petitioner preferred the present special leave petition.
The respondent Union of India contended that the rejection order
H sent by registered post to the petitioner's advocate in 1973 was not received
220
~ -
\
'
--
HARISH UPP AL v. U.0.1. [JEEV AN REDDY, J.]
221
back and that while refusing the petitioner's request for an interview with A
the Chief of Army Staff in 1976 he was informed of the rejection order.
Dismissing the petition, this Court
HELD : 1. The petitioner is guilty of !aches. The order rejecting the
post-confirmation petition filed by the petitioner was duly communicated B
to him. No person would have kept quiet for a period of more than ten
years without taking any steps if he· had not really received the orders upon
hjs petition. [223-F-G]
2. That by granting relief to the petitioner no other person's rights
are going to be affected is only one of the considerations which the court C
"ill take into account while determing whether a writ petition suffers from
laches. It is not the sole consideration. [224-A]
3. It is a well-settled policy of law that the parties should pursue their
rights and remedies promptly and not sleep over their rights. That is the D
whole policy behind the Limitation Act and other rules of limitation. If
they choose to sleep over their rights and remedies for an inordinately long
time, the court may well choose to decline to interfere in its discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [224-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) E
No. 5087 of 1984.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.3.84 of the Delhi High Court
in C.W.P. No. 827 of 1984.
WITH
C.M.P. No. 34318 of 1985.
Petitioner-in-person.
F
V.C. Mahajan and Ashok K. Srivastav, for C.V. Subba Rao for the G
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B.P. JEEV AN REDDY, J. Heard the petitioner-in-person in support
of this Special Leave Petition. We have also perused the written submission H
222
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1994] 3 S.C.R.
A filed by him. We find no substance in the Special Leave Petition.
B
The Special Leave Petiton is directed against an order of the Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition
summarily on two grounds, viz., (1) that the petitioner had approached the
Supreme Court but his _petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on
November 27, 1972 reported as Harish Uppal v. Union of India, [1973] 3
S.C.C. 319 and (2) that his petition is highly belated. Whatever may be said
about the first ground, the second ground given by the High Court is, in
our opinion, perfectly justified. It cannot be said that the High Court haExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.