CAMBRIDGE PRIMARY SCHOOL Vs. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner-school impugning the letter dated 10.1.2007 which reads as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1867_ILRDLH23_2013.htm</FRM>

(2.) THE obduracy of the school went to the extent that they refused to comply with the aforesaid order dated 10.1.2007 and therefore the concerned teacher, namely, Ms. Yukti Banerjee was forced to file a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.5462/2010 for implementation of the said order dated 10.1.2007. The writ petition ultimately allowed by an order dated 16.1.2013 and only thereafter the petitioner-school has paid the amount due.

(3.) IN my opinion, the obduracy and obstinacy of a person in refusing to pay dues under a final order of Direction of Education by contesting proceedings cannot mean that the said person will have a right after losing in an earlier writ petition filed by the teacher, to file a fresh writ petition for setting aside the impugned order which was passed way back in January, 2007 i.e six years and six months earlier. No doubt, there are observations in the order dated 16.1.2013 to enable the petitioner to file a fresh petition however that liberty was in accordance with law. Since the law does not permit entertaining of stale challenge and cases are not entertained which are barred by delay and laches, I am not inclined to interfere in this writ petition as the writ petition is barred clearly by delay and laches. No doubt, Limitation Act does not apply to the writ petitions, however that does not mean that the ordinary period of limitation has to be overlooked. Ordinary period of limitation is overlooked only in extenuating circumstances or where a representation is filed by a concerned person and which representation is pending without rejecting the same. I do not find any ground in this case to entertain a writ petition which is filed six years and six months after cause of action arose. No explanation, much less which is legally acceptable, has been furnished for delay in filing of this writ petition, and as already stated above contesting of writ proceedings by a petitioner as a respondent is not a ground to extend the period for filing of the writ petition in the year 2013 against an order passed in January, 2007.