2024 (11) TMI 1335 - HC - Indian Laws

Rejection of Original Application on the ground of delay and laches - applicability of time limitation - issuance of the provisional gradation list - scope of judicial review - HELD THAT - The principle of delay and laches is to be applicable in a case where the principle of limitation is made out. The same is strictly applicable in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or any other litigation where the principle of limitation is not applicable. If the principle of limitation is applicable then, the case is to be considered on the basis of applicability of principle of limitation by giving go-bye to the principle of delay and laches. The position of law is very settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the principle of delay and laches is held to be applicable, however, the period of limitation is not applicable. In STATE OF MP VERSUS NANDLAL JAISWAL 1986 (10) TMI 321 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and if there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the writ petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to interfere and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Emphasis was laid down on the principle of delay and laches stating that the High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and inconvenience in bringing the justice. The Central Administrative Tribunal has been given the Constitutional status and in order to carry out the judicial proceeding a statute has been formulated known as the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The Tribunal has been conferred with a power under section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Further, the Tribunal has been conferred with the power to condone the delay as per the provision made under sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act, 1985 whereby and whereunder, it has been laid down in view of the principle as contained under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay if the sufficient cause will be shown. It is evident that the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 wherein the Tribunal is to apply the principle of limitation for the purpose of acceptance of the original application subject to the power to condone the delay, meaning thereby, the whatever power has been conferred to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same is little bit different, even though the Tribunal is having the Constitutional status to the effect that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there is non- applicability of principle of limitation and, as such, by virtue of the judicial pronouncement the principle of delay and laches has been held to be applicable on the principle that inordinate delay cannot be allowed to approach the Court of equity after lapse of a reasonable delay, subject to sufficient cause. Thus, it is evident that the sufficient cause means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has not acted deliberately or remained inactive . However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. This Court is of the view that the objection has been dealt with by the authority on 13.01.2020 and immediately within a period of one year the Tribunal has been approached by the petitioner and, as such, it is not even a case to satisfy the learned Tribunal for the purpose of condoning the delay, since, the Tribunal has been approached within a period of one year from the date when the objection of the writ petitioner has been rejected , i.e., on 13.01.2020. The error apparent on the face of the order means that if the order appears on its face having with error, then only the power of judicial review is to be exercised. The scope of judicial review conferred to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in sowing interference with the award passed by the adjudicator/Tribunal - This Court in the premise of the power conferred to exercise the power of judicial review is now proceeding to examine the propriety of the impugned order wherefrom it is evident that the Original Application of the writ petitioner has been rejected on the ground of applicability of principle of delay and laches and limitation. It is evident that while dealing with the issue of limitation, the learned Tribunal has not dealt with that as to from which date either the limitation will count or from which date the principle of delay and laches would be applicable - this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the factual aspect before coming to the conclusion about the applicability either of the principle of delay and laches or the principle of limitation. The impugned order dated 24.08.2022 passed in Original Application by the learned Tribunal is hereby set aside - the matter is remitted to the learned Tribunal to pass order afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned in accordance with law - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Applicability of the principles of delay, laches, and limitation in the rejection of the Original Application by the Tribunal.
2. Determination of the appropriate cause of action date for assessing the limitation period.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

I. Applicability of Delay, Laches, and Limitation:

The primary issue addressed by the court was whether the Central Administrative Tribunal correctly applied the principles of delay, laches, and limitation in rejecting the Original Application filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the grounds of "acquiescence and laches" and being barred by limitations, citing that the seniority list was prepared on 20.06.2013, and the petitioner approached the Tribunal after six years, which was deemed as delayed.

The court analyzed the principles of delay and laches, emphasizing that these principles apply when the limitation period is not explicitly defined. The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, provides a statutory framework for limitation, and the Tribunal is empowered to condone delays if sufficient cause is shown, akin to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The court highlighted that the Tribunal must distinguish between cases where the principle of limitation applies versus those where delay and laches are relevant. The Tribunal's decision was questioned because it did not properly consider whether the limitation period should be calculated from the issuance of a provisional seniority list or the rejection of the petitioner's objections.

II. Determination of the Cause of Action Date:

The court scrutinized the factual timeline to determine the appropriate cause of action date for assessing the limitation period. The petitioner contended that the cause of action arose when the provisional seniority list was issued on 03.06.2019, and objections were invited, which were subsequently rejected on 13.01.2020. The petitioner argued that the application to the Tribunal was filed within one year from the rejection of objections, thus falling within the permissible limitation period under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

The court agreed with the petitioner, stating that the cause of action should be considered from the date when the objections were rejected, not from the initial preparation of the seniority list in 2013. The court noted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate this distinction, leading to an erroneous dismissal of the application based on delay and laches.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application based on delay and laches was flawed. It held that the cause of action arose from the rejection of the petitioner's objections to the provisional seniority list, and the application was filed within the appropriate limitation period. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Tribunal to provide an opportunity for a hearing and to decide the matter in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.