Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Nov 18: High Court today held that a person cannot approach the court for addressing his grievances at his/her will after a prolonged delay.
Underscoring the importance of Article 226 of the Constitution, court can reject the plea of a person who has approached the court with a long delay if cause was available to him to approach the court immediately.
“It is settled law that if a person wants to invoke the jurisdiction of a Writ Court, he should come to the court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity and that any ordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will be a good ground to refuse the exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution”, Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey said while dismissing the petition with the observation that the it is ‘hopelessly belated’.
Court while underlying the discretion under Article 226 and referring to the Supreme Court ruling said, “it is not to encourage stale claims and exhume matters” which have been disposed off or settled as such even acquiescence is a ground to refuse such relief.
Court while dismissing the petition on its threshold said apart from the fact that the petitioner has not pleaded or made out any cause of action, or projected any grievance against the respondents, nor does he allege infringement of any legal or constitutional right.
“He has been extremely remiss and negligent in approaching the court. No explanation, much less legally tenable, is coming forth from the writ petition why the petitioner stood by and waited for so long a time to allow the things to happen”, judgement reads.
The petitioner claims to have been a candidate in response to the advertisement notice dated 26.04.2002. His case is that the written examination was conducted in February 2009 and he appeared under Roll No. 030949. Pursuant to the results of the written examination in July 2009, he was shortlisted for interview under RBA category. Nothing has been revealed in the petition as to what has happened thereafter as he was supposed to approach the court in the same year.
Court said the petitioner approached the Court in November this year when the selection process has culminated into issuance of list of selected candidates for appointment against the posts of Naib Tehsildars.
“Seven long years have elapsed since then and the petitioner has waited and allowed the things to happen. Naturally, therefore, the equity, if any, that might have existed then would not subsist intact till now”, Justice Magrey said.
“This petition on the face of it is not maintainable on two counts; first, the petitioner does not claim infringement of any legal or constitutional right; second, even if it be assumed that the petitioner could raise any grievance against the selection process or the select list, he has not approached the court within a reasonable period of time”, Justice Magrey said.
Follow our WhatsApp channel