1994 (3) TMI 388 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of writ petition on grounds of belated filing.
2. Communication of rejection orders on post-confirmation petition.
3. Consideration of laches in writ petitions.
4. Impact of ex parte orders on subsequent petitions.
5. Jurisdictional challenge in the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court's order dismissing a writ petition on the grounds of being highly belated. The petitioner, a former army officer, was found guilty of irregularities in a court-martial in 1972 and was awarded dismissal and imprisonment. The final orders were communicated to him in September 1972, and subsequent petitions were filed over the years, including one in 1983, which led to the current writ petition.

2. The petitioner claimed that he received the rejection orders on his post-confirmation petition only in 1983, while the government asserted that the rejection was communicated in 1973 to his advocate. The Court accepted the government's version, citing various instances where the petitioner did not contest the rejection earlier, leading to a finding of laches on the petitioner's part.

3. The Court emphasized the importance of timely pursuit of legal remedies and highlighted that delay in seeking relief can impact the court's discretion in granting writ petitions. The petitioner's argument that no third-party rights were affected due to the delay was not considered sufficient to overlook the significant delay in seeking relief.

4. The Court also addressed the impact of ex parte orders made in a previous petition, emphasizing that such orders do not override the need for timely pursuit of legal remedies. The petitioner's reliance on the ex parte order was deemed insufficient to justify the delay in seeking relief in subsequent petitions.

5. Lastly, the petitioner's challenge regarding the jurisdiction of the impugned order was not substantiated, leading the Court to conclude that there was no merit in the special leave petition, which was consequently dismissed without any costs. The Court did not find it necessary to address the petitioner's arguments regarding the jurisdictional challenge in the impugned order.