2017 (5) TMI 1787 - HC - Indian Laws

Review Order - error apparent on the face of record or not - no period of limitation in the writ petition - HELD THAT - Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which is not applicable per se to the writ proceedings, enjoins a duty upon the Court to take into consideration the period of limitation. Though in a writ petition, there is no period of limitation, but delay and laches is important aspect which is required to be taken into consideration to consider as to whether a litigant has slept over his rights or has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court with due diligence. Once the Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner has approached this court after delay and laches, we find that only because the plea was not raised in a reply to the writ petition is not a ground for review of the order, as it is not an error apparent on record. Review petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Review of court order based on delay in filing petition and objection raised by the State.

Delay in Filing Petition:
The petitioner sought a review of the court order, arguing that the State had not objected to the delay in filing the petition before the learned Single Judge. The court highlighted that delay is not a plea that needs to be specifically pleaded. Even though there is no specific period of limitation for writ petitions, the court has the authority to consider delay and laches to determine if the litigant has diligently invoked the court's jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the absence of a plea regarding delay in the initial petition does not automatically warrant a review of the order, as it is not an error apparent on record.

Objection Raised by the State:
The petitioner contended that the State had raised objections to the relief claimed, which the court had wrongly recorded in its order. However, the court clarified that the absence of an objection from the State or the Public Service Commission regarding the delay in filing the petition does not preclude the court from considering delay as an important aspect. The court noted that once it has determined that the petitioner approached the court with delay and laches, the failure to raise this issue in the initial reply to the writ petition does not justify a review of the order.

Conclusion:
After a thorough analysis of the arguments presented, the court found no merit in the review petition and subsequently dismissed it. The judgment underscored the importance of considering delay and laches in legal proceedings, even if not explicitly raised by the parties involved. The court's decision reaffirmed that the absence of a specific objection in the initial stages of a case does not automatically necessitate a review of the order, especially if the delay issue was appropriately addressed during the proceedings.