P.Bassan Gouda vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. The Court found that the reasons provided in the petitioner's affidavit for condoning the delay were insufficient and not valid grounds for condoning laches. Specifically, the affidavit's reference to other officers being exonerated and granted relief did not constitute adequate justification for the significant delay of over 12 years. The Court noted that the reasons assigned in paragraph 14 of the affidavit were not at all grounds for condoning the laches. Furthermore, the Court referred to a previous decision in WP No. 13123 of 2020, where a similar matter was dismissed under similar facts. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to condone the laches and concluded that the case was not fit for exercising the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioner, P. Bassan Gouda, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana challenging an order dated August 25, 2009, passed by the Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 844 of 2008. This order confirmed a punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner sought to set aside the order of punishment dated March 29, 2005, issued by the Joint Commissioner (P&V), Disciplinary Authority, Hyderabad I Commissionerate, which was confirmed by the Commissioner and Chief Commissioner in appeals. The writ petition was filed more than 12 years after the Tribunal's order. The petitioner's affidavit cited that substantial numbers of officers were exonerated and granted consequential relief, and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same, requesting condonation of delay. The respondents argued that the writ petition should be dismissed on the sole ground of laches.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the writ petition should be condoned in the interest of justice, considering the petitioner's claim for relief based on similar cases where other officers were exonerated and granted consequential relief? (Question of law and fact, concerning the exercise of extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that substantial numbers of officers in similar situations were exonerated and granted consequential relief. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief, and the delay in filing the writ petition should be condoned in the interest of justice. The petitioner relied on the principle of parity and equity. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of laches, as it was filed more than 12 years after the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. They also submitted that in similar factual situations, this Court had dismissed matters, and this case should not be an exception.