Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
!"#$%#&'('$)*++
* ,- +
. .-
! " #### .-/+- $ %
& ''()''*
+ , - setting aside of award dated 13.09.2017 to the extent Victim Compensation Committee, Fazilka (for short ‘Committee’) has awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 2. The petitioner suffered 50% permanent disability due to an accident on 24.02.2017. An FIR No.37 dated 27.04.2017 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC at Police Station Sadar, Abohar, District Fazilka. The FIR was cancelled following untraced report. He filed application dated 22.05.2017 before the Committee. The said application was allowed and Committee vide award dated 13.09.2017 awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner claims that as per Punjab Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017, he is entitled to higher amount of compensation. PRINCE CHAWLA 2026.03.24 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3. On being asked reason of inordinate delay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a beneficial legislation and its benefit was not granted to the petitioner, thus, petition is maintainable. 4. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. Where illegality is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred.
State cannot deprive vested right because of a non- deliberate delay. 5. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court recently in ‘Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others’ 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551 has held that High Court ought to dismiss petition on the ground of delay and laches where there is no explanation of delay. An applicant who approaches the Court belatedly or in the other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by writ Courts. Delay defeats equity. High Court may refuse to invoke its writ jurisdiction if laxity on the part of applicant has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made to rekindle the lapsed cause of action. Multiple communications cannot create cause of action. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as below:
.
PRINCE CHAWLA 2026.03.24 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
!
""# $ $ $ % % & % $
PRINCE CHAWLA 2026.03.24 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document $ $ % ""# ' 6. The impugned order was passed on 13.09.2017. The petitioner is relying upon policy of 2017. A period of almost 9 years from the date of impugned order has passed away. There is no explanation of inordinate delay. 7. In the wake of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering inordinate delay on the part of petitioner, this Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. 8. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .-
++ Prince Chawla
/
- ) 0)1 /
& 0)1 PRINCE CHAWLA 2026.03.24 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document