The Allahabad High Court, in a recent ruling, dismissed a writ petition filed by Shyamji Tripathi, citing an inordinate delay of 13 years in filing the petition. The court held that the petition was “totally misconceived” and that the petitioner had not provided any sufficient reason for the delay.
Background of the Case
The writ petition, numbered CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 6409 of 2024, was filed by Shyamji Tripathi against the State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, and another respondent. The petition sought the quashing of an order dated September 8, 2011, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, which had granted police protection to the opposite party No. 2. The petitioner also sought directions to prevent the opposite parties from harassing him and filing frivolous cases against him.
The counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashutosh Pandey and Sri Suresh Kumar Upadhyay, argued that the impugned order granting police protection to the opposite party No. 2 was issued without proper application of mind. The petitioner further claimed that the opposite party No. 2 was a criminal with several pending cases against him.
However, the respondent’s counsel, Sri Rajeev Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.-1), contended that the petition was frivolous and filed after an unreasonable delay of 13 years. He argued that the petitioner had not furnished any explanation or sufficient cause for the delay in any part of the writ petition.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
The main legal issue in the case revolved around the doctrine of “laches” and whether the petitioner’s delay in approaching the court could be excused. The court, presided by Justice Shamim Ahmed, referred to several precedents to establish the principle that petitions must be filed within a reasonable time to prevent prejudice and maintain the certainty of legal proceedings.
In its detailed judgment, the court observed:
“A petition must be filed within a reasonable time and should not be vitiated by inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.”
The court emphasized that the expression “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, should receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice, but only where there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction. The court cited the Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji (1987), where it was held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred.
Justice Ahmed further noted:
“There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. However, a total inaction for a long period of delay without any explanation whatsoever, and that too in the absence of showing any sincere attempt on the part of the suitor, would add to his negligence, and would be a relevant factor going against him.”
The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s observation in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1998), stating:
“Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.”
Court’s Decision
After thoroughly analyzing the arguments and reviewing the petition, the court concluded that the petitioner had approached the court after a highly belated period of 13 years without providing any reasonable explanation for the delay. The court found no justification for granting relief as sought by the petitioner and deemed the petition to be “totally misconceived.”
The court dismissed the petition with the following remarks:
“The petitioner, after waking up from deep slumber, approached this court without any iota of explanation for the delay, as per his choice, caprice, and whim. Thus, it can by no stretch of imagination be stated that the petitioner has approached this court within a reasonable time. The petition is totally misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.”
Case Reference:
– Case Title: Shyamji Tripathi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another
– Case Number: CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 6409 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Shamim Ahmed
– Petitioner’s Counsel: Suresh Kumar Upadhyay, Ashutosh Pandey
– Respondent’s Counsel: Rajeev Verma, Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.-1)
