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.

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgement reviewed by – Pooja Lakshmi

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat