Whether court should grant relief to kumbhakaran litigants?

If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in
filing a petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High
Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ
jurisdiction.?
Emphasis was laid on the principle of delay and laches stating that resort to
the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction at a belated stage is
likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in injustice.
        16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly
brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and
the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is
exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional
court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously
it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved
person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or
pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the
lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes
in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be
fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster
for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects
inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant ? a litigant who has
forgotten the basic norms, namely, ?procrastination is the greatest thief of
time? and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix.
Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.
        17.In the case at hand, though there has been four years? delay in
approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It
is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be
ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such
belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being 
absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the
responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind
of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously
oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the
contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such
delay may have impact on others? ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag 
others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have
been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give
indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with ?Kumbhakarna? or for 
that matter ?Rip Van Winkle?. In our considered opinion, such delay does not
deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should
have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED:  11.08.2016  

CORAM   
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR           

W.P(MD)No.2145 of 2016   
and 
W.M.P.(MD)No.1867 of 2016   

        
G.Uma Maheswari                 .. Petitioner      

Vs.

The Secretary to Government, 

Print Page

Basic concept of doctrine of delay and laches

 It has been further stated therein that

if there is inordinate delay on the part of the
petitioner in filing a petition and such delay is
not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may
decline to intervene and grant relief in the
exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Emphasis was
laid on the principle of delay and laches stating
that resort to the extraordinary remedy under
the writ jurisdiction at a belated stage is likely to
cause confusion and public inconvenience and
bring in injustice.
16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should
not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is
required to weigh the explanation offered and
the acceptability of the same. The court should
bear in mind that it is exercising an
extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a
constitutional court it has a duty to protect the
rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to
keep itself alive to the primary principle that
when an aggrieved person, without adequate
reason, approaches the court at his own leisure

or pleasure, the Court would be under legal
obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a
belated stage should be entertained or not. Be
it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In
certain circumstances delay and laches may not
be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate
delay would only invite disaster for the litigant
who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay
reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a
litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basic
norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest
thief of time” and second, law does not permit
one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does
bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In
the case at hand, though there has been four
years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the
writ court chose not to address the same. It is
the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such
enormous delay is to be ignored without any
justification. That apart, in the present case,
such belated approach gains more significance

as the respondent-employee being absolutely
careless to his duty and nurturing a
lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had
remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext
of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost
of repetition that remaining innocuously
oblivious to such delay does not foster the
cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in
injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such
delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights
and may unnecessarily drag others into
litigation which in acceptable realm of
probability, may have been treated to have
attained finality. A court is not expected to give
indulgence to such indolent persons - who
compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter
‘Rip Van Winkle’. In our considered opinion,
such delay does not deserve any indulgence
and on the said ground alone the writ court
should have thrown the petition overboard at
the very threshold.

Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1941 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 15530 of 2013)
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply
and Sewerage Board and others …
Appellants
Versus
T.T. Murali Babu …
Citation: 2014III AD (S.C.) 491, 2014(1)ESC35, (2014)2MLJ369, 2014(2)SCALE163, 2014 (2) SCJ 427
Dipak Misra, J.

Print Page

No relief to person who sleeps over his rights like kumbhakaran

The Supreme Court today upheld the sacking of an engineer who went on unauthorised leave for 19 months and then took four years to appeal his dismissal, saying indolent people who slept like “Kumbhakarna” or, for that matter, Rip Van Winkle, couldn’t expect “indulgence”.

Justices H.L. Gokhale and Dipak Misra said the delay in filing the appeal for reinstatement reflected “inactivity and inaction” on the part of the litigant who had forgotten a basic norm, that “procrastination is the greatest thief of time”.

Print Page