(1.) THE petitioner is a peon/watchman in the Regional Pottery Training Centre, Kozhikode, under the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries. He entered service on 16.2.1981. THE said appointment was not approved. THE petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.26348/2004, in which, Ext.P1 judgment was rendered directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner. Later on, Ext.P2 order was passed regularising the service of the petitioner. But that order was not implemented. THE petitioner filed W.P.(C).No.26960/2006, in which, by Ext.P3 judgment, recording the fact that Ext.P2 order was later reviewed and fresh order has been passed on 22.11.2007 cancelling Ext.P2, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. But the petitioner was given the opportunity to take appropriate steps in relation to the order dated 22.11.2007, by which Ext.P2 order had been cancelled. That judgment is dated 10.12.2007. THE petitioner submits that the petitioner was given Ext.P4 show cause on 28.8.2006, to which, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 reply. THEreupon, Exts.P6 and P7 orders were passed. THE petitioner is challenging Exts.P6 and P7 orders in this writ petition. Ext.P6 [which is the same as Ext.P2 in W.P.(C).No.26960/2006)] was passed as early as on 22.11.2007 and Ext.P7 order was passed on 22.12.2007.
(2.) IN view of Ext.P6 order, this Court dismissed the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner by Ext.P3 judgment, on 10.12.2007. Therefore, the petitioner was aware of the cancellation of the approval as early as in December, 2007. But he filed this writ petition challenging the same only on 10.12.2009. This Court had directed the petitioner to explain the long delay by order dated 11.12.2009. The petitioner has now produced documents relating to the marriage of the petitioner's daughter as well as the illness of the petitioner's mother in his attempt to explain the delay. From the same, I see that the petitioner's daughter's marriage was on 13.5.2007 and illness of the petitioner's mother was in 2008. The petitioner also claims financial stringency on account of the same. If that is accepted as an explanation for the delay for not approaching this Court in time, then this Court may not be able to reject writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches, since any person can raise such a contention. IN the above circumstances, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has satisfactorily explained the long delay of two years in challenging the impugned orders. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition on account of unexplained delay and laches. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.