# Prasidh Narayan Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 390 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2022-03-04 - **Case number:** Writ A No. 18950 of 2021 - **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prasidh-narayan-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48336 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Laches & Delay - Unexplained & inordinate delay - Held - person, who is not vigilant and dormant about his right, cannot be allowed to agitate his right - time-barred cases should not be entertained by Courts & Court should dismiss the writ petition on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay as the rights, which have accrued to others by reason of delay in approaching the Court, cannot be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay - there must be satisfactory explanation by the petitioner as how he could not come to the Court well in time A show cause notice issued to petitioner on 06.02.2010 - petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 07.02.2010 - After about 12 years in the year 2021 writ petition filed with a prayer to decide representation dated 07.02.2010 - not even a single word mentioned in the writ petition with regard to delay in filing same - Held - writ petition hopelessly barred by limitation as such dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay (Para 3, 4, 11) 4 All. Prasidh Narayan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 391 Dismissed. (E-5) List of Cases cited :- ## Text 390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES without any justifiable reasons. Whenever the Government deviates from its policies/guidelines/ executive instructions, there must be cogent and strong reasons to justify the order; when transfer order is challenged by way of representation, there must be material on record to establish that the decision was in public interest and it does not violate any statutory provision, otherwise the order may be struck down as being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The authorities cannot justify their orders that breach of executive orders do not give legally enforceable right to aggrieved person. As observed by Justice Frankfurter "An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged". 11. The petitioner in the present case has been transferred on the ground that he has stayed at the said place for more than twenty years and hence, the same is not in violation of any transfer policy or Government Order. 12. After considering the submission made by the parties as well as careful consideration of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, I am of the view that this Court cannot interfere with the transfer matter as the Government servant has no vested right to continue at a place of his choice. The Government can transfer the officer/employee in the administrative exigency and in public interest. However, if a transfer is made against the executive instructions or transfer policy, the competent authority must record brief reason in the file for deviating from the transfer policy or executive instructions and the transfer must be necessary in the public interest or administrative exigency. 13. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ---------- (2022)04ILR A390 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Writ A No. 18950 of 2021 Prasidh Narayan Yadav ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., A.S.G.I., Sri Sushil Kumar Mishra Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Laches & Delay - Unexplained & inordinate delay - Held - person, who is not vigilant and dormant about his right, cannot be allowed to agitate his right - time-barred cases should not be entertained by Courts & Court should dismiss the writ petition on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay as the rights, which have accrued to others by reason of delay in approaching the Court, cannot be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay - there must be satisfactory explanation by the petitioner as how he could not come to the Court well in time A show cause notice issued to petitioner on 06.02.2010 - petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 07.02.2010 - After about 12 years in the year 2021 writ petition filed with a prayer to decide representation dated 07.02.2010 - not even a single word mentioned in the writ petition with regard to delay in filing same - Held - writ petition hopelessly barred by limitation as such dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay (Para 3, 4, 11) 4 All. Prasidh Narayan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 391 Dismissed. (E-5) List of Cases cited :- 1. Central Coalfields Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing Director & ors. Vs Smt. Parden Oraon reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299 2. General Fire & Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. Vs Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, AIR 1941 PC 6 3. Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs Jaswant Singh & ors., reported in AIR 2003 SC 234 4. Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs M.A. Rasheed & anr. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 460 (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pranab Ojha, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Shushil Kumar Mirshra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2&3, who will file his vakalatnama in the Registry today itself. 2. This writ petition has been filed interalia for the following relief:- "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent no.3 to decide the representation dated 07.02.2010 within the stipulated period." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Driver on 22.01.2009. A show cause notice dated 06.02.2010 was given by the respondent no.3 to him with respect to the fact that as to why his services be not terminated on the ground that he has concealed the fact regarding pendency of the criminal case against him. He further submits that the petitioner has submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 07.02.2010 but nothing has been done. 4. Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent nos.2&3 submits that the present writ petition is hopelessly barred by limitation, as pursuant to the show cause notice issued on 06.02.2010, the petitioner has slept over his rights for more than twelve years. He further submits that not even a single word has been mentioned in the present writ petition with regard to delay in filing same. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not dispute the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 6. It is settled law that the person, who is not vigilant and dormant about his right, cannot be allowed to agitate his right as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director & Ors. Vs. Smt. Parden Oraon reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299. 7. The time-barred cases should not be entertained by Courts as the rights, which have accrued to others by reason of delay in approaching the Court, cannot be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. The vested rights of the parties should not be disrupted at the instance of a person, who is a guilty of culpable negligence. The Privy Council in General Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, AIR 1941 PC 6, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lectures 1932, wherein it has been said that "a law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly 392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on applicable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognised by law." 8. In N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 133, the Apex Court explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay, observing as under:- "The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy." 9. In the case of Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh & ors., reported in AIR 2003 SC 234, the Apex Court has held that the High Court cannot ignore the delay and laches in approaching the writ court and there must be satisfactory explanation by the petitioner as how he could not come to the Court well in time. 10. Further in the the case of Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed & Anr. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 460, the Apex Court has held that the High Court should dismiss the writ petition on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no good ground to entertain the present writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay. ---------- (2022)04ILR A392 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Writ A No. 19015 of 2021 Sant Kumar ...Petitioner Versus U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Mohammad Umar Khan Counsel for the Respondents: A.S.G.I., Ms. Suman Jaiswal Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Territorial jurisdiction - Cause of action - Petitioner, resident of Gorakhpur, U.P., was posted at the Office of Commandant, 149 Btn, Shib Sagar, Assam at the time when his wife suffered from Covid-19 - representation/application for medical claim has been made before the DGP, CRPF, New Delhi - Held - merely because petitioner is resident of this State, no cause of action would arise within the territorial limits of Allahabad High Court - it is open to the petitioner to move an application/representation before the appropriate authority having jurisdiction - Dismissed as not maintainable (Para 11) Dismissed. (E-5)