The Supreme Court has cautioned High Courts against granting relief to people knocking on their doors belatedly.
A court is not expected to indulge indolent persons “who compete with Kumbhakarna or, for that matter Rip Van Winkle,” said a Bench of Justices H.L. Gokhale and Dipak Misra. If the inordinate delay in filing a petition was not satisfactorily explained, the High Court might decline to intervene.
Writing the judgment, Justice Misra said that as a constitutional court, it had a duty to protect the rights of citizens. But when an aggrieved person approached it at his leisure or pleasure, the court would be under a legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. “Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity.”
The Bench said: “Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant” and “law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. Such delay may have an impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag them into litigation…”
In the instant case, T.T. Murali Babu, who was working in the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, remained absent from August 28, 1995 to March 31, 1997 without informing the office, which treated his absence as unauthorised. Later, he produced medical certificates to prove that he had been ill but the CMWSSB refused to accept his explanation and dismissed him. A single judge and a Division Bench of the Madras High Court ordered his reinstatement.
Allowing the CMWSSB’s appeal against this judgment, the Supreme Court said Murali Babu had exhibited an adamant attitude, not responding to the employer’s communications during his unauthorised absence. “As it appears, he has chosen his way, possibly nurturing the idea that he could remain absent for any length of time, apply for grant of leave any time and knock at the doors of the court at his own will after four years … This kind of conduct cannot be countenanced as it creates a concavity in work culture and ushers in indiscipline in an organisation,” the Bench said, setting aside the High Court order.
