Bhavani Deen vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

V.K. Shukla, J

The present intra court appeal is filed under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the order dated 06-09-2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the withdrawal of an amount of Rs.10,000/- from his GPF account and also claiming 18% interest on the said amount has been dismissed.

The facts of the case in short are that the petitioner has retired from the post of Sector Supervisor/Class-III post from the office of respondent no.2 on 30-09-2014. According to him, thereafter he could notice that an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been shown to be withdrawn from his GPF account, though he never withdrawn such amount from the GPF account.

It is alleged that the withdrawal of such amount pertains to the year 1993-94 and for a period of 20 years, the petitioner did not take any objection regarding the withdrawal till the date of his retirement. There is no plausible explanation in the writ petition also about the such delay and laches in filing the present petition. It is settled law that delay and latches disentitled the petitioner to any relief. The Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman & Managing Director and another Vs. K. Thangappan and another (2006) 4 SCC 322 has held as under :

"Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad Vs. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (1969) 1 SCC 185. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably."

In view of the documents on record and the inordinate delay of more than 25 years in filing the petition, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition and declined to exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting any interference in the present intra court appeal.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.