LexSHIV DASS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• SHIV DASS A ~ I v. .....,-1' UNION OF INDIAAND ORS . JANUARY 18, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] B Constitution of India, 1950: - )- Art. 226-Delay and /aches in filing writ petition-Effect of-Held, Court to consider dekry while exercising discretionary powers-In case of c belated approach, writ petition liable to be dismissed. In 1982, appellant suffered from medical problem and was invalidated from service. In 1983, he claimed disability pension which was rejected. He filed writ petition in 2005, which was dismissed on the ground of delay and !aches. Hence the present appeal. D ~ Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court to r hear writ petition on merits, the Court HELD: 1. Normally, in the case of belated approach writ petition has to be dismissed. Delay or laches is one of the factors to be borne in mind E by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers ifthere is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, F causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is -· .,. involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court. Of course, the discretion has to be e~ercised judicially and reasonably. [Para 7) [1129-E-G) Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and Ors., G AIR (1970) SC 769; State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar, AIR (1976) SC 1639, relied on. ~ f Lindsay Petroleum Company v. Pro_sper Armstrong Hurd Etc., (1874) 5 P.C. 221; The Moon Mills Ltd. v. MR. Meher, President, Industrial Court, H 1127 + • 1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R. A Bombay and Ors., AIR (1967) SC 1450; Maharashtra State Road Transport -\ ,.... B Corporation v. Ba/want Regular Motor Service, Amravati and Ors., Affi (1969) SC 329; State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal and Ors., AIR (1987) SC 251; K. V. Raja Lakshmiah v. State of Mysore, AIR (1967) SC 993; State ofOrissa v. Sri Pyarimohan Samantaray, AIR (1976) SC 2617, referred to. 2. In the case of pension the cause of action actually continues from month to month. That, however, cannot be a ground to overlook delay in filing the petition. It would depend upon the fact of each case. If petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normally the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which could be granted to a reasonable C period of about three years. The High Court did not examine whether on merit appellant had a case. If on merits it would have found that there was no scope for interference, it would have dismissed the writ petition on that score alone. (Para 11) [1131-C-D] D E F G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 274 of2007. . From the Final Judgment and Order dated 22.8.2005 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.12886/2005. Gaurav K. Bhatnagar and Dharam Bir Raj Vohra for the Appellant. R. Mohan, A.S~G. Vikas Sharma, D.S. Mabra and Anil Katiyar for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT, J. : 1. Leave granted. 2. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant on the ground that it was highly belated. It was noted that appellant ,was out of service in the year 1983 and the writ petition was filed in 2005. 3. Appellant's case in a nutshell is as follows: H 4. Appellant was enrolled in Army Medical Corps, Lucknow in "' r I ____... ~ . ) SHIVDASSv. U.O.I. [PASAYAT,J.] 1129 September, 1965. In 1982 he suffered from medical problem of weak eyesight A and he became almost 80% disabled, despite being getting the treatment. Therefore, he was placed under low medical category by the Medical Board. He was relieved from the service being invalidated out of service. In 1983 appellant claimed disability pension for the 80% disability. It was rejected by the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad. Appellant claims that he had filed appeal before the appellate authority but there no reply was given. Since there was no intimation regarding any order in the appeal, he filed the writ petition in 2005. His prayer was fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.