Acquiescence, Delay & Laches Are Grounds To Dismiss Claim Sought To Be Raised At Belated Stage: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The writ petitioners in this case argued that they have the requisite qualification for being adjusted in Medical/Dental Colleges for imparting education to the students seeking medical degrees. The Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, categorically noticed that the writ petitioners never challenged the impugned order within a reasonable time.

The court held that the writ petitioners cannot seek complete parity with the vigilant litigants, who had timely approached the Writ Court in the year 2013 because the law helps those who help themselves and does not come to the rescue of the persons who choose to sleep over their rights.

In service jurisprudence, applicability of the said principle depends on whether the subject matter of the decision impugned touches upon policy matters, the court added.

In service jurisprudence, applicability of the said principle would also depend on the factum whether the subject matter of the decision impugned touches upon policy matters i.e. affecting a class of persons or is a judgment in personam.

Court relied on the judgement of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others, (2015) 1 SCC 347, wherein it was held that persons who did not challenge the wrongful action and woke up after long delay only because their counterparts succeeded in their efforts, cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered. However, this exception may not apply in cases where the judgment pronounced was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons.

Court relied on another judgement of the Apex Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and another vs. Jaswant Singh and another, (2006) 11 SCC 464, wherein it was held that whenever it appears that the claimants lost time or whiled it away then the court should be slow in granting the relief.

As far as the facts and circumstances of the instant case are concerned, the court held that the appellants have not given any explanation as to what pre-empted them from seeking judicial review even after information under RTI was furnished, as had been done by few other similarly situated persons.

It may be noticed at the cost of repetition that the appellants have not given any explanation even before this Court, as to what preempted them from seeking judicial review even after information under RTI was furnished, as had been done by few other similarly situated persons. It has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge that it cannot be believed that the appellants were not aware of those orders, as the effected party had already filed writ petition and obtained interim stay and the said stay order was not applicable to the writ petitioners/appellants herein.

In view of the above discussion, the court partly allowed the intra-court appeal and Letters Patent Appeal. It further set aside the impugned judgment dismissing the writ petition, while stating that it may not be appropriate to non-suit the writ petitioners, especially when the policy affecting their rights was under scrutiny of the writ Court being subject matter in writ petitions pending before another Single Judge in 'Jagan Jot and others vs. State of Punjab and others'.

Case Title : Dr. Sangeeta Aggarwal and others v. State of Punjab and others

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 161

Click Here To Read/Download Order