NK PARSURAM LIMBU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. BC Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. SC Shyam, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) It appears from the present writ petition that the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition after a lapse of 42 years. The only reason for the delay in approaching this Court is that there were several correspondences between the petitioner and the respondents and also the petitioner was not mentally sound for a number of years. It is the submission of Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents that there is no sufficient reason for the delay of about 42 years in approaching this Court. He further contended that if there be no response to the applications or letters of the petitioner, the petitioner should have approached this Court within a reasonable period. However, there is no fixed period or limitation for filing the writ petition.

(3.) In the present case, it appears that the petitioner has awaken like a Rip van winkle. The relief cannot be granted to Rip van winkle who had awaken from deep slumber after a number of years. In Para-3 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was granted three months leave by his Unit, 6th Assam Rifles w.e.f. 02.09.1971 and allowed him to visit his original native place, village Funling-2, Mechi Zone, P.O. Taplejung, East Nepal; and he fell down from a tree on 17.10.1971 and as a result, he sustained severe head injury and fractured on his left leg and he became completely immobilized and bed ridden and could not rejoin his Unit. Further, it is clear from the pleadings of the petitioner in the present writ petition that he did not inform his Unit personally but his wife sent three letters dated 02.11.1971, 28.12.1971 and 15.06.1974 addressed to the Zila Sainik Board with a copy to the Commandant, 6th Assam Rifles, C/o 99 APO, stating that her husband was bed ridden on account of fracture on his left leg. Further, it is clear that there is no letter from the side of the petitioner or from his wife to the concerned authority that the petitioner fell from a tree and he could not rejoin his Unit.