Kiran Raj

The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a dismissal order issued in 2019, citing an unexplained delay of more than 5.5 years in approaching the court. The court observed that writ remedies should be invoked promptly and not by individuals who remain inactive for prolonged periods. It held that the petitioner, a former judicial officer, was fully aware of legal remedies and could not justify the long delay on grounds of financial distress or the COVID-19 pandemic.

The petition was filed by a former Junior Civil Judge, seeking to quash an order passed by the State of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.20, dated April 2, 2019, and a subsequent order issued by the respondent authority vide ROC.No.731 & 1525/2016-Vigilance Cell, dated April 9, 2019. The petitioner alleged that these orders were arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction.

The petitioner, who had been dismissed from service in 2019, filed the present writ petition on October 30, 2024, after a delay of more than 5.5 years. When questioned about the delay, the petitioner initially requested time to address the issue and later filed an additional affidavit attributing the delay to difficulties in securing legal representation, financial hardship following dismissal, and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic between 2020 and 2022.

The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader for Law & Legislative Affairs and senior counsel appearing for the concerned authority, opposed the petition, arguing that such an extensive delay rendered the claim untenable.

The division bench, comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda, examined whether the delay in filing the writ petition could be condoned under judicial precedents. The court recorded that "there is no dispute of the impugned order having been served upon the petitioner promptly." It further observed that, despite having full knowledge of her rights and legal remedies, the petitioner took no legal action for an extended period.

Referring to the petitioner's justification that financial hardship and lack of cooperation from legal counsel contributed to the delay, the court noted that "the explanation so provided by the petitioner is not justifiable or plausible for the inordinate delay of more than 5½ years." The bench emphasized that the petitioner, being a former judicial officer, "is a person who is fully aware of the rights and remedies available to her subsequent to the order of dismissal from service." The court found that such an individual could not plead ignorance or lack of legal assistance as a reason for delay.

The judgment relied on multiple Supreme Court precedents regarding delay and laches. Citing Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108, the court reiterated that "the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside", and that courts must weigh the acceptability of an explanation when an aggrieved party approaches the court at their convenience. The court further referred to State of Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v. Jabar Singh (2007) 2 SCC 112, which held that an unexplained 10-year delay in challenging a termination order was sufficient ground for dismissal of a writ petition.

Additionally, the court cited U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh (2006) 11 SCC 464, where the Supreme Court held that individuals who remain inactive for extended periods cannot claim relief merely because others, who acted in a timely manner, obtained a favorable decision. The judgment also referenced State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347, which held that individuals who delay legal proceedings cannot seek benefits extended to similarly placed individuals who acted diligently.

The court observed that "the writ remedies are always available to somebody who is ever vigilant and not indolent at all," and held that permitting a petition after such a prolonged delay would set an improper precedent.

 The writ petition was dismissed due to inordinate delay and lack of a satisfactory explanation.

Case Title: A.R. Vilasitha v. State of Telangana & Others
Case Number: W.P. No. 36516 of 2024
Bench: Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda

[Read/Download order]