ASHOK YADAV Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner by this writ petition assails the order dated 17.4.2006 by which the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed MA No.1545/2005. The said application had been filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in refiling OA No.260/2004 Petitioner had challenged the dismissal of the original application No.260/2004 vide orders dated 3.2.2004 in Writ Petition(C) No.2637/2005. Tribunal had dismissed the OA in limine in the absence of any plausible explanation of delay in refiling the original application.

(2.) In the High Court, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Tribunal with an explanation for delay in refiling the original application before the Tribunal. M.A. No. 1545/2004 was thus, moved by the petitioner before the Tribunal seeking condonation of delay in filing the OA. It would be appropriate at this stage to notice that OA itself had been filed on 24.10.2002. Same had been returned with objections. Petitioner, after expiry of seven months, re-filed the OA on 27.5.2003. OA was returned with objections again. Petitioner failed to remove the objections in time and re-filed the OA again after a delay of three months, i.e. on 22.8.2003. The remaining objections were removed by the petitioner when he re-filed the OA on 5.9.2003. The OA still suffered from objections and petitioner was required to remove the same within 30 days. It is here that the petitioner claims that counsel intended to re-file on 20.9.2003 but could not do so due to heavy schedule and he noted the matter for re-filing on 22.9.2003 but could not trace the original application. It is claimed that there was some shifting of the office of the counsel also and the original application was misplaced. The said original application, it is claimed was traced from another file of the petitioner on 26.1.2004 After detaching the same from the said file, he filed the OA along with an application for condonation of delay in re-filing on 29th January, 2006.

(3.) In these facts, the Tribunal cannot be faulted with for holding that there was no sufficient cause or any explanation for the delay in refiling the application. It would be noticed that there is no explanation for the initial delay in refiling. The delay was seven months and three months, i.e. from 24.10.2002 to 27.5.2003 and 22.8.2003. Petitioner, for the period subsequent to September, 2003, had initially sought to put it on the misplacement of the file during shifting of office which, later on he claims, was on account of attachment of the application with another file.