Anil Kumar Singh vs Union Of India And Others

Ravi Malimath, J

The petitioner seeks for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the respondent-Government of India.

The brief facts that are relevant for disposal of this petition are as follows:

Pursuant to the order dated 14.12.2005, respondent no. 5 was allotted the State of Uttar Pradesh. A representation was made by her. The respondent-Government of India, by the order dated 17.12.2013 which is impugned in this writ petition, granted the request and allotted her to the State of Uttarakhand as an Assistant Regional Transport Officer. Questioning the same, the instant petition has been filed.

Shri Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, primarily, contends that the impugned order is not sustainable in law; and the order goes against the judgment of this Court delivered on 26th July, 2010 in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 79 of 2008 in the case of M.C.Joshi and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. By relying on the said judgment, it is pleaded that the petition be allowed and the allotment of respondent no. 5 to the State of Uttarakhand be set aside. The same is disputed by the respondents through their statements of objections.

On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.

The impugned order was passed on 17.12.2013 and the writ petition was filed on 29.11.2016. Therefore, there is delay of almost three years.

On considering the pleadings, we do not find any mention being made, even of an attempt, to explain the delay. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner has failed to show any reason for the delay in filing the petition. The delay becomes important in the instant case for the reason that respondent no. 5 is scheduled to retire by the end of this month, namely, five days later. The petition comes up for being heard on an urgency application being filed in the year 2020. If any interference is made by the Court at this stage, the entire service of respondent no. 5 would be affected, merely because of the intervention of this Court. Therefore, interference by this Court at this stage, in our considered view, is not appropriate.

Further, contentions of Shri Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel for the fifth-respondent, that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition; and the earlier litigation between the parties is well established, in our considered view, need not be gone into for the present.

Under the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the instant petition. The petition is dismissed. Pending IA No. 7563 of 2020 also stands rejected.