(..8..)

DELAY AND LATCHES[1]

Table of Contents

SHORT NOTES

Delay and Latches

SYNOPSIS

Meaning:-
Object:-

Measures of delay:-

Meaning:-

Issuing writs is an equitable relief; therefore, they are governed by the principles of equity. It is one of the important principles of equity that ‘delay defeats equity[2]’. In other words, the principle means, ‘the law helps those who are watchful and not those who sleep over their rights[3]. Therefore, delay and latches in filing a writ (i.e. long inordinate delay in a filing writ petition under Art. 226, i.e. before the High Court, or under Art. 32, i.e. before the Supreme Court) may result in refusal of the writ.

Object:-

The object behind allowing delay and latches as a defence to writ petitions is that the courts should not unnecessarily encourage claims against States. The courts should not exhume matters that have already been disposed of, where the rights of the third party have accrued in the meantime, or where no reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay is provided. In other words, the object behind it is to help those who are watchful, not those who sleep over their rights[4].

In Mutichand V/s. C. T. O. Bombay[5]

Facts– the petitioner was a sales-tax assessee. He paid a certain amount towards the sales tax in 1958. After ten years, i.e. in 1968, he approached the court requesting the order to refund the amount from Income-Tax authorities because, according to him, the said amount was paid by oversight.

Supreme Court held that it is a clear latch on the part of the petitioner.

Measures of delay[6]:-

The Limitation Act does not apply to writ petitions, and the constitution prescribes no period of limitation to file the writ. However, it shows that the matter is left more or less at the court’s discretion.

In Narayani Devi V/s. State of Bihar[7]

Gajendragadkar C. J. observed that ‘no hard and fast rules can be laid down as to the refusal of writs on the ground of delay and latches. Like other matters, it must be left at the court’s discretion.

======================================================

2) DOCTRINE OF RES-JUDICATA[8]

SHORT NOTE

RES-JUDICATA

SYNOPSIS

Meaning

Ingredients for application of the doctrine of Res-judicata

OBJECT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF RES-JUDICATAIII.

APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLE TO ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION

RES-JUDICATA IN WIRT PROCEEDINGS
Meaning:-

S.11 of the C.P.C, 1908, embody the principle of Res-judicata[9]. It simply means that if any issue had been raised, tried and decided by the competent court having jurisdiction to try the suit, the same issue cannot be raised, tried and decided by any court between the same parties in a subsequent suit. In other words, where the matter is decided between two parties in the suit or proceeding by the competent court, and such a decision has acquired finality (either because no appeal is filed to a higher court or the appeal filed is dismissed), neither of the parties will be allowed to propose the same matter again[10] by filing a fresh suit of proceeding.

Ingredients for application of the doctrine of Res-judicata-

The following ingredients shall be present to apply the principle of res judicata-

1) a matter has been decided.

2) by a competent court (having jurisdiction to try the suit).

3) and the decision is final (either because no appeal was made to a higher court, the appeal made is dismissed, or no appeal lies against the order).

4) the subsequent suit is filed on the same ground (not tenable because of the principle of res-judicata between similar parties).

OBJECT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF RES-JUDICATA:-

The principle of res-judicata is based on the principle of public policy to end litigation; otherwise, there will be twice, thrice, or fourth-time litigations on the same ground. However, different causes of action may arise from the same facts, leading to different suits or proceedings. However, apart from the facts, the principle of res-judicata applies. For example, for the bounce of a cheque, a criminal complaint seeking punishment for the accused may be launched, and at the same time, a civil suit for recovery of money from the party may be launched. However, a double criminal complaint for the same cause or a double civil suit for the recovery of money can not be filed. Similarly, if dacoity with murder is committed, different proceedings, one for dacoity and another for murder, shall start, though both offences have been committed in one instance.

Therefore, to avoid twice vexing the parties over the same cause and to avoid endless litigations on the same matter, the principle of res-judicata applies.

III. APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLE TO ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION[11]:-

Since S.11 of the Civil Procedure Code applies to civil suits, the question arises as to whether it applies to administrative adjudications. The answer is yes. Thus, an award pronounced by the Industrial Tribunal operates as res-judicata on ‘payment of wages authority’, and the latter cannot entertain the same question again.[12].

In Bombay Gas Co. V/s. Jagannath Pandurang[13]

The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of res-judicata is wholesome and applicable not merely to civil suits but to administrative adjudications.

RES-JUDICATA IN WIRT PROCEEDINGS[14]:-

Another question arises regarding the applicability of the principle of res-judicta to wirt jurisdiction in quashing administrative action.

Supreme Court has affirmatively solved the question in the following cases.

In, Darya V/s. State of Utter Pradesh[15]

Facts– The writ petition filed under Article 226 before the High Court of Allahabad was dismissed by the court on merits by hearing both parties. The petitioner again filed a writ petition under Art.32 before the Supreme Court on the same grounds, praying for the same relief.

Held– Supreme Court rejected writ petition on the ground of res-judicata.

But in H. Singh V/s. Union of India[16]

Held– If the High Court has dismissed the writ petition without giving reasons for its rejection or without discussing it on merits, the principle of res-judicata does not apply.

*****

[1] उशीर [विलंब]

[2] उशीर न्यायाला बाधक/मारक असते [ विलम्ब न्याय में बाधक है ]

[3] ‘Vigilantibus, non dormintibus, jura sub veniunt’

[4] कायदा तत्पर माणसास मदत करतो अधिकारांबद्दल, झोपा काढणारास नाही. म्हणजे उषीर करणारास नाही. [कानून अधिकारों के बारे में जागरूक व्यक्ति की मदद करता है, सोए हुए व्यक्ति की नहीं। यानी नकल करने वाला कोई नहीं।]

[5] AIR 1970 SC

[6] उषीराचे मोजमाप [विलंब का मापन]

[7] 1964 SC

[8] पूर्वीचा निर्णय/पूर्व न्याय [पूर्व निर्णय / पूर्वाग्रह]

[9] पूर्व न्याय/निर्णय

[10] जर एखादा मुद्दा/वाद न्यायालयापुढे उपस्थित केला असेल, चालविला असेल त्यावर निकाल दिला असेल तर तोच मुद्दा/वाद परत न्यायालयापुढे उपस्थित केला जाऊ षकत नाही. [यदि कोई मुद्दा/विवाद न्यायालय के समक्ष उठाया गया है, उस पर निर्णय पारित किया गया है, तो वही मुद्दा/विवाद न्यायालय के समक्ष दोबारा नहीं उठाया जा सकता है।]

[11] प्रषासकीय न्यायनिर्णयाला पूर्व-न्यायाचे तत्व लागू [प्रशासनिक अधिनिर्णयन के कार्योत्तर अनुप्रयोग का सिद्धांत]

[12] Bombay Gas Company V/s. Shridhar AIR 1961 SC 1196

[13] (1975) 4 SCC 690

[14] लेखादेषामध्ये पूर्व-न्यायाचे तत्व लागू [लेखांकन में पूर्व-निर्णय का सिद्धांत लागू होता है]

[15] AIR 1963 SC 1457

[16] AIR 1979