2025:JHHC:29604 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6258 of 2023 ----- Jagat Narayan Prasad, S/o Late Daroga Prasad, R/o Mohalla- Bhavanbigha, P.O. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar (T), District- Deoghar, Jharkhand ------ Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi 3.The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi 4.The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District- Deoghar 5.The Executive engineer, Planning, Quality Control and mounting Division, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) ------ Respondent(s) ….. CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate Ms. Neetu Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Prakash, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Indrani S. Choudhary, Advocate …...... 18 / 24.09.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner in this case is seeking his 1st and 2nd ACP benefits. 3. Exactly for the same relief, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.6637 of 2014 and vide order dated 24.04.2017, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ petition with the finding that there is no merit in the same. 4. The petitioner did not challenge this order before the any superior forum. Now after 8 and 1/2 years, the petitioner has again filed this writ petition praying for the same relief on the ground that some person later on by filing a writ petition has got the relief. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Ram Gopal, reported in (2021) 13 SCC 225 has held that writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs committed upon them. It is necessary to quote paragraph 11, which is hereunder:- 11. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and the writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence-sitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. In S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala [S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 388] , this Court observed thus : (SCC p. 485, para 17) “17. It is also well-settled principle of law that “delay defeats equity”. … It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment.” (emphasis supplied) 6. A subsequent writ petition in which the order passed is in personam cannot come to the rescue of this petitioner where his case has already stood rejected after consideration. This is nothing, but an abuse of process of Court. Further, no relief was granted to this petitioner to file another writ petition which is apparent from the order dated 24.04.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.6637 of 2014. 7. Thus, this writ petition is dismissed as barred by res-judicata. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 24th September, 2025 R.S.