Cases of Two Petitioners Identical Will Be Barred By Limitation And Laches: Patna High Court
The two orders issued in exaltedly similarly qualified cases when the cases of the two petitioners are identical to the petitioners in the two cases is barred by limitation and laches is upheld by the High Court of Patna through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI in the case of Md. Ushman Ansari Vs. State Of Bihar (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6586 of 2020).  Brief facts of the case are that on August 17, 1995, the petitioners’ services were terminated. Similarly situated individuals approached the Court, and on July 25, 2007 decisions were issued in favour of petitioners’ colleague. Following that, on 02.12.2010, decided in favour of similarly situated persons. The petitioners are the fence sitter, as evidenced by the record that they submitted representation for the first time on February 10, 2012. After that he hasn’t come back to the Court in approximately eight years. As a result, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in the matter of State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. R.K. Zalpuri and others, the current petition is hopelessly barred by limitation and laches. The petitioners in this writ petition seek indulgence before this Hon’ble Court for the purpose of disposing of the present writ petition in accordance with the two orders issued in exaltedly similarly qualified cases because the cases of these two petitioners are identical to the petitioners in the two cases, i.e., Prem Prakash Singh and another Versus The State of Bihar and others , Sanjay Kumar and others Versus The State of Bohar and others. The court also stated that, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court must evaluate whether adjudication of a writ petition involves any complicated and disputed factual issues and whether they may be satisfactorily resolved, and whether the petition discloses all material facts. Moreover, the Court must also evaluate the petitioner has any other or effective remedy for resolving the dispute, and the person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches; and ex facie barred by any statutes of limitation; and grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law among other factors. The court hence disposed the petition.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.65820 1. Md. Ushman Ansari Son of Md. Siddque Ansari Resident of Village Khapra P.O. and P.S. Akorhigola District Rohtas at Sasaram 2. Krishna Singh Son of Sri Moti Lal Singh Resident of Laxman Bigha P.S Indrapuri District Rohtas at Sasaram ... Petitioner s The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Road Construction Department Govt. of Bihar Patna The Engineer in Chief cum Chief Engineer Road Construction Department Govt. of Bihar Patna The Superintending Engineer Road Construction Department Bhojpur Circle Ara District Ara The Executive Engineer Road Construction Department District Ara The District Magistrate Cum Collector Ara District Ara ... Respondent s For the Petitioner s Mr. Arun Kumar No. 1 Advocate For the Respondent s Mr.contained in Annexure 1 and order dated 02.12.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7772 2006contained in Annexure 2 because case of these two petitioners are exactly similar to the cases of the petitioners of aforementioned two cases contained in Annexure 1 and 2 as they have been terminated by the same letter contained in Annexure 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.65820 dt.20 12 2021 And further for issuance of any other wit or writs direction or directions as it may be deceased fit and proper to the facts and circumstances of this case.” Petitioners’ services were terminated on 17.08.1995 Similarly situated persons have approached this Court and orders were passed in favour of petitioners’ colleague on 25.07.2007 in C.W.J.C No. 11776 on 2006. Thereafter C.W.J.C. No. 77706 decided on 02.12.2010 in respect of similarly situated persons. The petitioners are fence sitter as is evident from the record that they have submitted representation for the first time on 10.02.2012. Thereafter he has not approached this Court for about eight years. Therefore the present petition is hopelessly barred by limitation and laches in terms of the Apex Court decision in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir V s R.K. Zalpuri and others reported in AIR 2016 SC 3006 paragraph 20 has held as under “20. Having stated thus it is useful to refer to a passage form City and Industrial Development Corporation V s. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and others {(2009) 1 SCC 168} wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has expressed thus: “The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty bound to consider whether a) Adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed question of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved b) The petition reveals all material facts Patna High Court CWJC No.65820 dt.20 12 2021 c) The petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute d) Person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches e) Ex facie barred by any laws of limitation f) Grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law and host of other factors” Accordingly petition stands dismissed. P. B. Bajanthri J GAURAV S. 