AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Pathak, C.J.—Shri R.K. Punshi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, states that he does not seek any relief in respect of the integrated seniority list (Annexure PS). But he says that the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of confirmation (Annexure PE) confirming Respondents Nos. 3 to 15 with effect from June 30, 1966. That order was passed on November 24, 1966. This writ petition was not filed until June 21, 1971. It is evident that the petition has been filed with great delay so far as the challenge to the order of confirmation is concerned. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out that the Petitioner made repeated representations to the authorities for relief in the matter and it was in 1971, shortly before the writ petition was filed, that the Petitioner came to know that no relief was being granted. It seems to me that the explanation tendered by the Petitioner does not afford sufficient ground for condonnig the delay. It has not been shown that the representations were made pursuant to any statutory right to represent against the order of confirmation. It is settled law that the mere making of representations, without any statutory right to do so, does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay occasioned in filing the writ petition. See Jagdish Narain Malliar v. The Stale of Bihar and Ors. 1973 (2) S.L.R. 527. Learned Counsel relies upon the observations of a Division Bench of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Pranab Kumar Choudhury v. Union of India 1971 S.L.R. 364. The proposition laid down in that case does not, in my opinion, accord with the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
The Petitioner is guilty of gross laches and accordingly the petition must be dismissed.
The petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.