LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-16

B MURALI KRISHNAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On November 08, 2006
B.MURALI KRISHNAN Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 2nd January, 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) whereby, Original Application No.2253/1999 and M.A.No.1393/2000 seeking production of certain records and documents was dismissed by the Tribunal as being without merit. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner herein was applicant no.2, whereas one Shri Govind Singh was applicant no.1.

(2.) The petitioner has also filed CM No. 13021/06 seeking condonation of delay in filing the present writ petition. As stated here-in- above, the order impugned before us is of 2nd January, 2004 but the writ petition was filed before this Court only on 19th September, 2006, that is, after a lapse of over 32 months. With the consent of parties, we heard the parties both on the aspect of delay and laches as well as on merits, and thereafter reserved orders. We shall first take up the aspect of delay and laches and thereafter deal with the merits of the present case.

(3.) In his application for condonation of delay, the petitioner states that though the judgment of the Tribunal was delivered on 2nd January, 2004 but the respondents kept the petitioner in false sense of complacency by allowing him to join duty at Delhi and also making payment of salary and payment of TA/DA etc., for more than four months. The petitioner states that he suffered financially besides undergoing mental trauma because of the incident which occurred in Pakistan leading to his being sent back to India. He further states that there was a demise in his family and that he also suffered physical illness. He states all these circumstances put together incapacitated him in putting together his resources to consult and engage a counsel and approach this Court. He further states that the delay is not intentional since he does not gain anything by delaying the filing of this petition. The respondents have opposed the application for condonation of delay.