# Ex.Sep.No. 2974530 Rajendra Prasad Singh v. Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 464
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-05-04
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 557 of 2005
- **Bench:** Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ex-sep-no-2974530-rajendra-prasad-singh-v-union-of-india-and-others-40473
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India Article 226-Writ
jurisdiction-Delay
about-24
yrs.-
Petitioner discharged from service-on
the ground of mental trouble-Order of
discharge quested after 24 yrs.-held
petitioner
himself
changed
the
circumstances puts the respondents in a
disadvantage
position-No
public
important question involved-dismissal of
Writ Petition on the ground of delayheld-proper.

Held: Para 7

Also, in very deserving cases, the Court
might feel compelled to exercise judicial
discretion, on the basis of sound and
well settled judicial principles, when
justice requires the matter to be dealt
with so urgently and strongly, that the
point of delay and delay alone should not
be made the guiding factor in decision of
the writ the Court condoned large
delays. Our case is not such one. The
writ petitioner could have appealed at
the material time. At, al on ground that
the Medical Board had erred and he was
in fact mentally sound and fit. The point
of time when the mental insanity of the
writ petitioner become an issue has long
gone by, nobody can now test whether
the writ petitioner come with reasonable
expedition after the decision had been
taken by the respondent authorities, the
test could have been carried out and the
writ Court would be in a position to
judge the matter. Today we cannot, just
because
a
rule
of
procedure
was
infringed, assume against the authorities
and that the Medical Board had erred.
The writ petitioner has changed the
circumstances in such a manner by
allowing time to lapse, that he puts the
respondents
in
a
position
of
disadvantage today. As such the writ
petition should be dismissed on the
ground of delay of more than 24 years,
we respectfully uphold the judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1984 SC-866
AIR 1984 SC-1527
AIR 1989 SC-985
AIR 1977 SC-1979

## Text

464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 4.5.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJOY NATH RAY, C.J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Special Appeal No. 557 of 2005

Ex.Sep.No.2974530
Rajendra
Prasad
Singh

...Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri B.N. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra
Addl. S.C.

Constitution of India Article 226-Writ
jurisdiction-Delay
about-24
yrs.-
Petitioner discharged from service-on
the ground of mental trouble-Order of
discharge quested after 24 yrs.-held
petitioner
himself
changed
the
circumstances puts the respondents in a
disadvantage
position-No
public
important question involved-dismissal of
Writ Petition on the ground of delayheld-proper.

Held: Para 7

Also, in very deserving cases, the Court
might feel compelled to exercise judicial
discretion, on the basis of sound and
well settled judicial principles, when
justice requires the matter to be dealt
with so urgently and strongly, that the
point of delay and delay alone should not
be made the guiding factor in decision of
the writ the Court condoned large
delays. Our case is not such one. The
writ petitioner could have appealed at
the material time. At, al on ground that
the Medical Board had erred and he was
in fact mentally sound and fit. The point
of time when the mental insanity of the
writ petitioner become an issue has long
gone by, nobody can now test whether
the writ petitioner come with reasonable
expedition after the decision had been
taken by the respondent authorities, the
test could have been carried out and the
writ Court would be in a position to
judge the matter. Today we cannot, just
because
a
rule
of
procedure
was
infringed, assume against the authorities
and that the Medical Board had erred.
The writ petitioner has changed the
circumstances in such a manner by
allowing time to lapse, that he puts the
respondents
in
a
position
of
disadvantage today. As such the writ
petition should be dismissed on the
ground of delay of more than 24 years,
we respectfully uphold the judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1984 SC-866
AIR 1984 SC-1527
AIR 1989 SC-985
AIR 1977 SC-1979

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J.)

1. The appeal is taken up and
disposed of ex parte in the absence of the
respondent, Union of India.

2. The writ petitioner-appellant was
discharged from service in 1979 and
disability pension withheld from him in or
about 1981. The ground therefore was
mental unfitness. It is submitted by the
appellant that the report of the Medical
Board should have been forwarded to him
and in case he was not mentally sound, it
should have beer forwarded in accordance
with the rules to the next of kin so as to
allow him the right of appeal.

3. The writ petition has been filed
after more than 24 years. Although
representations
were
made,
in
the
meantime, the Hon. Mr. Justice Sunil
Ambwani, in his Lordship's impugned
2 All] Ex.Sep.No. 2974530 Rajendra Prasad Singh V. Union of India and others
 465
order dated 18.3.2005 has dismissed the
writ petition on the ground of laches and
delay. We respectfully agree with his
Lordship that there was inordinate delay
in this case and on that ground alone the
writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

The following cases were cited and
relied on by the appellant.

AIR 1984 SC 866 H.D. Vora versus
State of Maharashtra and others, AIR
1984 SC 1527 G.P. Doval and others
versus Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P. and
others, AIR 89 SC 985 P.L. Shah versus
Union of India and another.

4. The judgment of the Supreme
Court in H.D. Vora's case was a case in
which the requisition of the property was
challenged after a lapse of 30 years. The
Court repelled the submission that the
High Court ought to have dismissed the
writ petition on the ground of laches. The
Court observed that the challenge urged
on behalf of third respondent was on the
ground that requisition is by its very
nature temporary in character and it
cannot ensure for an indefinite period of
time and the order of requisition therefore
ceased to be valid and effective after the
expiration of a reasonable period of time
and
that
it
could
not under
any
circumstances continue for a period of 30
years.
Thus the
writ
petition
was
entertained on the reason that on account
of lapse of time, a cause of action arose to
declare the requisition as invalid. The
above case is clearly distinguishable and
has no applicability in the facts of the
present case. The next case relied on by
counsel for the appellant in G.P. Doval's
case (supra). In the writ petition under
Article 32 provisional seniority list was
challenged after 12 years. The writ
petition was entertained by the Supreme
Court holding that the department had
neither finalized the provisional seniority
list for 12 years nor had given reply to the
representation made against in the above
circumstances, the writ petition was
entertained. The above case also is
distinguishable as keeping in the list
provisional was a fault of the department
for which the petitioners were not to
blame. Another case relied on by counsel
for the appellant is P.L. Shah's case
(supra). In that case the challenge was
made to wrong fixation of subsistence
allowance,
although
suspension
was
prolonged. The Tribunal rejected the
claim on the ground that it had been filed
after more than 5 years from the passing
of the order fixing the subsistence
allowance. The Court held that the cause
of action in respect of such prayer arises
every month in which the subsistence
allowance at the reduced rate was paid,
hence there was no laches and the
Tribunal ought no to have dismissed the
claim on the above ground. This case has
also no application in the facts of the
present case.

The Supreme Court in AIR SC 1979
Naib Subdedar Lachhman Dass versus
Union of India and others upheld the
order of High Court which dismissed the
writ petition filed by an army servant after
four years of discharge. It was said in
paragraph 3 of the judgment.

"3. It may perhaps be that the
appellant was misdirected in regard to the
remedies which he should have adopted,
but what stares one in the face is that it
was for the first time in September, 1970
that
the
appellant
invoked
the
extraordinary powers of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution for
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
challenging the legality of an order dated
December 21, 1966. The writ petition was
filed after a gross delay for which there is
no satisfactory explanation and therefore,
the High Court was justified in dismissing
it summarily."

5. The judgment of the Supreme
Court in Naib Subedar Lachhman Dass's
case (supra) is fully attracted in the facts
of the present case. Challenge to the order
of discharge after four years was held to
be barred by laches and in the present
case the order of discharge is sought to be
challenged after 24 years.

6. Regarding delay, in writ matters,
the Courts usually go by a self imposed
rule of treating the matter as barred by
time after the lapse of three years which is
the usual period of limitation for filing
suits. But the rule is not an inflexible one.
Delays even large delays can be over
looked in special writ matters where
questions
of
public
importance
are
involved. The case of an individual right
become a sort of test case, and in such an
event the court right see it fit to take up
the case even after some excessive delay.

7. Also, in very deserving cases, the
Court might feel compelled to exercise
judicial discretion, on the basis of sound
and well settled judicial principles, when
justice requires the matter to be dealt with
so urgently and strongly, that the point of
delay and delay alone should not be made
the guiding factor in decision of the writ
the Court condoned large delays. Our case
is not such one. The writ petitioner could
have appealed at the material time. At, al
on ground that the Medical Board had
erred and he was in fact mentally sound
and fit. The point of time when the mental
insanity of the writ petitioner become an
issue has long gone by, nobody can now
test whether the writ petitioner come with
reasonable expedition after the decision
had been taken by the respondent
authorities, the test could have been
carried out and the writ Court would be in
a position to judge the matter. Today we
cannot, just because a rule of procedure
was
infringed,
assume
against
the
authorities and that the Medical Board
had erred. The writ petitioner has changed
the circumstances in such a manner by
allowing time to lapse, that he puts the
respondents in a position of disadvantage
today. As such the writ petition should be
dismissed on the ground of delay of more
than 24 years, we respectfully uphold the
judgment passed by the learned Single
Judge.

8. After the order is passed and two
other matters are disposed of learned
counsel of the Union of India seeks to put
in appearance. His name might be
recorded.
We
do
not
invite
any
submissions from him.

The appeal is, thus dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.14185 of 1993

Shiv Sagar Dwivedi

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.B. Singh
Sri Vijay Sinha