- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Chunvad Pandey v. State Of U.P And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner was transferred from civil police to armed police by an order issued on 19.4.1989 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jhansi Range, Jhansi. Since that transfer, the petitioner has been serving in the armed police. The present writ petition was filed in 2008, nearly nineteen years after the transfer. The petitioner sought to excuse this delay by stating that he made a representation to higher authorities in 2007, which was rejected on 1.3.2008, and argued that therefore the petition should be entertained despite the delay.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner’s transfer from civil police to armed police in 1989 was in violation of para 525 of the U.P. Police Regulations, which restricts transfer of constables with less than ten years of service.
- Whether the writ petition filed after a delay of almost nineteen years is maintainable in light of the principles of laches and undue delay under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The petitioner argued that only a constable with less than ten years of service can be transferred from civil police to armed police as per para 525 of the U.P. Police Regulations.
- The petitioner relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Jasveer Singh v. State of U.P to contend that any transfer contrary to this regulation is illegal.
- The petitioner contended that the delay of nineteen years should be excused since he made a representation in 2007 which was rejected in 2008, thus he was not guilty of laches.
Respondent's Arguments
- This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Jasveer Singh v. State of U.P, 2008(1) ESC 158 (SC); 2008(2) ADJ 484 SC | Transfer of constables with less than ten years’ service from civil to armed police; legality of such transfer under U.P. Police Regulations para 525. | The court found the petitioner’s reliance on this judgment misconceived as Regulation 525 was not attracted and no provision prevented continuation in armed police beyond a particular period. |
| Government of West Bengal v. Tarun K. Roy and others, 2004(1) SCC 347 | Delay and laches as relevant factors in exercising equitable jurisdiction under Article 226. | Supported the court’s view that long delay militates against entertaining the writ petition. |
| Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh and another, 2006(11) SCC 464 | Equitable jurisdiction and delay in filing writ petitions. | Reinforced the principle that discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favor of those approaching court after long delay. |
| New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others, JT 2007 (4) SC 253 | Delay and laches as grounds for refusal to entertain writ petitions. | Held that writ petitions filed after long delay should generally not be entertained. |
| M/s Upton India Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others, JT 1994(6) SC 71 | Reasonable time for filing writ petitions under Article 226 despite absence of limitation period. | Established that writ petitions should be filed within reasonable time. |
| M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and others, 1995(5) SCC 628 | Delay and laches in filing writ petitions under Article 226. | Supported requirement of reasonable time and relevance of delay. |
| K. V. Rajalakshmiah Setty v. State of Mysore, AIR 1961 SC 993 | Representation does not constitute adequate explanation for delay in filing writ petition. | Applied to reject petitioner’s explanation based on representation made in 2007. |
| State of Orissa v. Pyari Mohan Samantaray and others, AIR 1976 SC 2617 | Delay and laches as valid grounds for refusal of writ petitions. | Reiterated the principle that delay is a relevant factor in exercising discretionary jurisdiction. |
| State of Orissa and others v. Arun Kumar Patnaik and others, 1976(3) SCC 579 | Delay and laches in writ petitions. | Followed the view that delay is a relevant consideration. |
| Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others, AIR 2007 SC 1330; 2007(1) Supreme 455 | Delay and laches in writ petitions under Article 226. | Confirmed that delay and laches are relevant factors to refuse relief. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the petitioner’s claim that the transfer violated para 525 of the U.P. Police Regulations and found this submission misconceived because Regulation 525 was not applicable to the petitioner’s case. The court noted there was no provision restricting a person’s continuation in armed police beyond a particular period. The court further analyzed the delay of nearly nineteen years in challenging the 1989 transfer order. It applied settled legal principles from various Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that undue delay and laches are significant factors in the exercise of equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner’s explanation for delay—filing a representation in 2007—was held insufficient. Consequently, the court concluded that the writ petition was barred by delay and laches and did not merit interference.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is dismissed.
The direct effect of this decision is the rejection of the petitioner’s challenge to the 1989 transfer order due to long delay and lack of sufficient explanation for laches. The court did not set any new precedent but reaffirmed established principles regarding delay and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.-
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. The petitioner was transferred from civil police to armed police by the order passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jhansi Range, Jhansi on 19.4.1989. It is not disputed thatthe said order was carried out in 1989 and si?ce then the petitioner is working in Armed Police. The present writ petition has been filed in 2008 and the petitioner has sought to explain laches of almost nineteen years by stating that in the year 2007 he made a representation to the higher authorities which has been rejected on 1.3.2008 and, therefore, he is not guilty of laches and this petition should be entertained by this Court.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that a constable who has worked for less than ten years can only be transferred from Civil Police to Armed Police as contemplated in para 525 of U.P. Police Regulations and any transfer contrary thereto is illegal in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Jasveer Singh v. State of U.P, 2008(1) ESC 158 (SC): 2008(2) ADJ 484 SC and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for simiiar treatment. In my view, the submission is thoroughly misconceived and even otherwise does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was admit-tedly transferred in the present case on 9.3.1989 by D.l.G, Jhansi Range, Jhansi. Ex facie, Regulation 525 was not attracted at alt. there is no provision which provides that a person cannot be continued in armed police beyond a particular period and nothing has been placed before this Court.
4. So far as challenge to the order dated 9.3.1989 is concerned, ex-facie, the petitioner is guilty of undue delay and laches which are relevant factors in exercising equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Following the cases of Government of West Bengal v. Tarun K. Roy and others, 2004(1) SCC 347 and Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh and another, 2006( 11) SCC 464, the Apex Court in New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others, JT 2007 (4) SC 253, observed that after a long time the writ petition should not have been entertained even if the petitioners are similarly situated and discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approached the Court after a long time. It was held that delay and laches were relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. In M/s Upton India Ltd. andothers. Union of India and others, JT 1994(6) SC 71 and M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and others, 1995(5) SCC 628 it was held that though there was no period of limitation provided for filing a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within reasonable time. In K. V. Rajalakshmiah Setty v. State of Mysore.AIR 1961 SC 993, it was said that representation would not be adequate explanation to take care of delay. Same view was reiterated in State of Orissa v. Pyari Mohan Samantaray and others, AIR 1976 SC 2617 and State of rissa and others v. Arun Kumar Patnaik and others, 1976(3) SCC 579 and the said view has also been followed recently in Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others, AIR 2007 SC 1330: 2007(1) Supreme 455 and New Delhi Municipal Council (supra). Si?ce the order impugned in the writ petition is of 1989 and has been challenged after more than 19 years,I do not find itafit case warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is guilty of undue long delay and laches which has not been satisfactory explained.
The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
Alert