Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mcd Vs. Rajkumar and ors.

Mcd vs Rajkumar and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Delhi Decided Sep 29, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/702730

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CW 1233/2002
Subject
Civil
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Civil
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mcd

Advocate P.R. Monga, Adv

Respondent

Rajkumar and ors.

Advocate Sanjoy Ghose and ; Pragnya, Advs. for respondent No. 1

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In
2003VIIIAD(Delhi)324; 108(2003)DLT195

Excerpt

- mukul mudgal, j.1. rule. 2. with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up today for final hearing. 3. this writ petition challenges the award dated 10th july, 2000. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award was published on 4th january, 2001 and the information relating thereto was received in the office of the petitioner corporation on 14th february, 2001. however, the writ petition was filed in this court only on 18th february, 2002. there is no other explanationn for the delay and laches in filing the writ petition. mr. monga has submitted that in matters relating to the movement of files in government department, files move at their own pace and such delay in the movement of the official files occur because they are required to go through several channels. consequently the delay in filing the writ petition is not such which should disentitle the petitioner to approach this court under article 226 of the constitution. 4. in my view, institutionalized lethargy cannot be any ground to explain the laches of more than one year. merely because the bureaucratic machinery in mcd moves slowly cannot be a ground for condoning laches. 5. consequently, there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed for laches. i, however, express no opinion on merits in respect of the impugned award dated 10th july, 2000.

Full Judgment

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule.

2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up today for final hearing.

3. This writ petition challenges the Award dated 10th July, 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award was published on 4th January, 2001 and the information relating thereto was received in the Office of the petitioner Corporation on 14th February, 2001. However, the writ petition was filed in this Court only on 18th February, 2002. There is no other Explanationn for the delay and laches in filing the writ petition. Mr. Monga has submitted that in matters relating to the movement of files in Government Department, files move at their own pace and such delay in the movement of the official files occur because they are required to go through several channels. Consequently the delay in filing the writ petition is not such which should disentitle the petitioner to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. In my view, institutionalized lethargy cannot be any ground to explain the laches of more than one year. Merely because the bureaucratic machinery in MCD moves slowly cannot be a ground for condoning laches.

5. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed for laches. I, however, express no opinion on merits in respect of the impugned Award dated 10th July, 2000.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial