V K SETH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Late Shri V.K.Seth had filed a Writ Petition in this Court praying inter alia for the issuance of a Writ or Order of like nature directing the Respondents to grant medical facilities to the Petitioner under CGHS Scheme. It is not in dispute that he was a pension beneficiary of CGHS and was admitted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi from 3.5.1997 to 11.8.1997 in two spells. During the pendency of the Writ Petition late V.K.Seth died on 16.3.2004 An application under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed on 10th/15th March, 2005. It has been contended by the Respondents that there is a delay of 240 days which has not been adequately explained. It has also been pleaded that a claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred in the course of hospitalization in 1997 has been filed before it as late as in June, 2002 and, therefore, stood barred by limitation. Reliance has been placed on Bibijan vs. Murlidhar, JT 1995 (1) S.C. 141, which has been specifically decided with reference to Order XXII of the CPC. My attention has also been drawn by learned counsel for the Respondents to the decision in Mohammed Anis vs. Sameer Ahmad, 92 (2001) Delhi Law Times 512 which was also predicated on the aforementioned provision of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code do not directly apply with all rigour to Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reliance has been placed on the observation of the Division Bench in Narain Singh vs. D.K.Dass, 2000 (54) DRJ (DB) 647 where it has been observed that the 'jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is a special and extraordinary jurisdiction and when Section 141 excludes the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure, the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution would as a natural corollary result in non-application of the technical rules contained in Order 22 of the Code.' The Division Bench had relied on Sital Prasad Saxena vs. Union of India, 1985 1 SCR 660, where the Apex Court had declined subscribe to the inference drawn by the Trial Court that the sons of the deceased knew about the pendency of the second Appeal. The Court had also noted that the parties were residing in rural areas. In Puran Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 205, it has been enunciated that it cannot be held that the 'provisions contained in Order 22 of the Code are applicable per se to writ proceedings. Rule 32 of the Writ Rules of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which simply says that in matters for which no provision has been made by those Rules, the provisions of the Code shall apply mutatis mutandis insofar as they are not inconsistent with those Rules, does not specifically make provisions of the Code applicable to petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.?

(3.) There is no room for controversy that while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under the Constitution the Writ Court is not circumscribed by any provisions of the CPC. The remaining question is whether the delay of 240 days would justify the rejection of the application for impleadment of the legal heirs of the deceased Petitioner. In this context it has been repeatedly held that the Writ Court must in each case consider the question of latches. In some cases a month's delay may be fatal whereas in other a year's delay may be irrelevant. In the application it has been stated that the Petitioner (sic Applicant) 'during the routine checking of the old files of the deceased Petitioner was able to lay her hand on the document that the claim of the Petitioner for reimbursement of Rs.1,79,000/- (Rupees one lac seventy nine thousand only) or so has been rejected and accordingly the Petitioner got a notice sent to the Ministry of Health through the counsel'. It is stated that the Applicant was in great shock on account of the death of her husband. In Applications under Section 151 of the CPC a prayer has been made for the first time to reimburse the said sum of Rs.1,79,000/-. Ordinarily I would be averse to non-suiting the Applicant merely because of delay of 240 days in filing an application for impleadment of the legal representatives in Writ proceedings.