STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR versus R.K. ZALPURI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 285 · Decided: 08-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

y, 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 285 
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR 
v. 
R.K. ZALPURI AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8390-8391of2015) 
OCTOBER 08, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Review- Scope of - Writ petition - Plea of undue delay 
taken by the respondents - Single Judge of High Court c 
decided the case without adverting to the plea of delay- In 
writ appeal also plea of delayllaches specifically taken, not 
adverted to - Review petition rejected on the ground that the 
parameters of review not attracted - On appeal, held: the. 
Single Judge as well as Division Bench failed to address the D 
issue of delay!laches despite such stance was eloquently 
put forth - As the principal stand of the respondent was not 
addressed to, it was a palpable error - The order required 
review for the purpose of consideration of the impact of delay 
and /aches in preferring the writ petition. 
E 
De/ay!Laches - Consideration of - By the writ. court -
Writ petition by delinquent - Challenging order of his 
dismissal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority 
- After about 5 years - Without challenging the same in 
F 
departmental. appeal - State took preliminary objection 
regarding de/ayl/aches in filing the petition - Single Judge 
of High Court without adverting to the preliminary objection, 
allowed the petition on the ground of non-compliance of s. 
34 of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, 
G 
Control and Appeal) Rules 1956 - Division Bench of the High 
Court also without adverting to the specific plea of delay/ 
/aches, affirmed the order of Single Judge - Review of the 
order passed in LPA was dismissed- On appeal, Held: A writ 
H 
285 
286 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A court is required to remain alive to the nature of the claim 
and the unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner- Stale 
claims not to be adjudicated unless non-interference would 
cause grave injustice -
The present case, being stale 
deserved to be thrown at the threshold - Service Law -
B Dismissal. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court rejected the application 
for review on the ground that it cannot sit in appeal and 
C the parameters of review are not attracted. Nothing in 
Article 226 of the Constitution precludes a High Court 
from exercising the power of review which inheres in 
every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage 
of justice or to correct grave palpable errors committed 
D by it. In the present case, there was a manifest error by 
the High Court, for it had really not taken note of the stand 
and stance that was eloquently put by the State as 
regards the delay and laches. The averments in the writ 
E petition were absolutely silent and nothing had been 
spelt out why the delay had occurred. The Single Judge 
had chosen not to address the said issue. The Division 
Bench in appeal addressed the submission, totally being 
oblivious of the ground pertaining to delay and laches 
F clearly stated in the memorandum of appeal, and 
modified the order passed by the Single Judge as if that 
was the sole submission. It was not an exercise of an 
appellate jurisdiction as is understood in law. It was a 
palpable error, for the principal stand of the State was 
G not addressed to and definitely it had immense 
significance and hence, the same deserved to be 
addressed to. The order required review for the purpose 
of consideration ·Of the impact of delay and laches in 
preferring the writ petition. [Paras 15 and 19) [294-H; 
H 295-A-B; 296-G; 297-A-C, D-E] 
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR v. R.K. ZALPURI 
287 
AND OTHERS 
Shivdeo Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and 
A 
Others AIR 1963 SC 1909; Aribam Tuleshwar 
Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma and Ors. 
(1979) 4 SCC 389; Mis. Thungabhadra Industries 
Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh 
represented by the Deputy Commissioner of 
B 
Commercial Taxes AIR 1964 SC 1372 : 1964 
SCR 174; Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde 
vs. Mal/ikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale AIR 1960 
SC 137: 1960 SCR 890 - referred to. 
2. The principle of delay and laches would not 
affect the grant of relief in all types of cases. A writ court 
while deciding a writ petition is required to remain alive 
c 
to the nature of the claim and the unexplained delay on 
the pa·rt of the writ petitioner. Stale claims are not to be o 
adjudicated unless non-interference would cause grave 
injustice. In the present case, the employee was 
dismissed from service in the year
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.