9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Transfer from civil police to armed police, delay in filing writ petition, applicability of U.P. Police Regulations para 525, equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Transfer from civil police to armed police: The petitioner was transferred from civil police to armed police in 1989. The petitioner argued that the transfer was illegal as per U.P. Police Regulations para 525, which allows transfer only for constables with less than ten years of service. However, the court found the argument misconceived as the petitioner was transferred in 1989, and Regulation 525 was not applicable. The court noted that there is no provision limiting the duration of service in armed police. The petitioner's claim for similar treatment based on a Supreme Court judgment was rejected. Delay in filing writ petition: The court emphasized the undue delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in challenging the transfer order dated 9.3.1989. Citing various legal precedents, the court highlighted that delay and laches are relevant factors in exercising equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court referred to cases where petitions were not entertained due to delays, emphasizing the importance of filing writ petitions within a reasonable time. The court concluded that the petitioner's delay of over 19 years in challenging the transfer order was not satisfactorily explained, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. Applicability of U.P. Police Regulations para 525: The petitioner contended that the transfer from civil police to armed police should adhere to para 525 of U.P. Police Regulations, which limits transfers for constables with less than ten years of service. However, the court found this argument misconceived as the petitioner was transferred in 1989, and Regulation 525 was not applicable in this case. The court emphasized that there is no provision restricting the duration of service in armed police, thereby rejecting the petitioner's claim for similar treatment based on the regulation. Equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The court highlighted the importance of equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in cases involving undue delay and laches. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that petitions should be filed within a reasonable time and that delay in approaching the court may lead to the dismissal of the petition. In this case, the court found the petitioner guilty of undue delay of over 19 years in challenging the transfer order, which was not satisfactorily explained. As a result, the court dismissed the writ petition.
|
