` CWP-27715-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 113 CWP-27715-2025 Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 Amandeep Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Sudhir Rana, Advocate, Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Virender Ahlawat, Advocate, Mr. Ankush Duhan, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Joon, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of seniority list dated 17.12.2021 whereby they have not been promoted as per their seniority despite order of this Court passed in CWP No.6197 of 2019. 2. The petitioners are part of Punjab Police Force. They completed three years service as Drill Instructors and became eligible for Lower School Course in December’ 2018. They were supposed to be deputed for Lower School Course as per Rule 19.22 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short ‘PPR’). They preferred CWP No.6197 of 2019 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 18.12.2019. The petition was disposed of in the light of statement of the respondent that petitioners’ case shall be considered MOHIT KUMAR 2025.09.17 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. ` CWP-27715-2025 -2- as per their seniority and appropriate order shall be passed. Two MT Instructors completed three years service in July’ 2021. The respondent delayed Lower School Course Batch on account of said officers. Lower School Course Batch actually started in August’ 2021. The petitioners along with others completed Lower School Course. The respondent issued seniority/promotion list on 17.12.2021. 3. The impugned order was passed in December’ 2021 and instant petition has been filed in September’ 2025. The petitioners, on the earlier occasion, approached this Court in 2019, thus, they are well aware of Court process. 4. On being asked reason of delay, learned counsel for the petitioners could not advance any plausible reason for inordinate delay in approaching this Court. 5. 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, the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. Where illegality is manifest, it 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. 6. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court recently in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551 has held MOHIT KUMAR 2025.09.17 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. ` CWP-27715-2025 -3- 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: “9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been nonsuited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action. 10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care and caution. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching the writ court is explained which would appeal to the conscience of the court, in such circumstances it cannot be gainsaid by the contesting party that for all times to come the delay is not to be condoned. There may be myriad MOHIT KUMAR 2025.09.17 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. ` CWP-27715-2025 -4- circumstances which gives rise to the invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction and it all depends on facts and circumstances of each case, same cannot be described in a straight jacket formula with mathematical precision. The ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ court depends upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the facts have travelled. 11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been invoked and even submitting of memorials would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a natural death. In such circumstances on the ground of delay and latches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed or the applicant ought to be non-suited. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will have to necessarily take into consideration the delay and latches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court.” 7. There is no explanation for delay. If the petitioners were aggrieved, they were bound to assail the said order within a reasonable period. No limitation has been prescribed for filing writ petition, however, litigants are not free to approach High Court as per their whims and convenience. The petitioners by their act and conduct acquiesced action of the respondent and at this belated stage, want to make hay while the sun shines. Case of the petitioners is badly hit by doctrine of delay and laches. MOHIT KUMAR 2025.09.17 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. ` CWP-27715-2025 -5- 8. In the wake of afore-cited judgment and considering inordinate delay on the part of petitioners, this Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. The present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 17.09.2025 Mohit Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHIT KUMAR 2025.09.17 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.