W.P.(C)/623/2020 of CHANDER MOHAN Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Parties
- W.P.(C)/623/2020 of CHANDER MOHAN (PETITIONER)
- UNION OF INDIA AND ANR (RESPONDENT)
Cites (0 resolved of 2 detected)
2 case citations detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.
Statutes cited (4)
- constitution of india, article-226 (1950)
- code of criminal procedure, 482 (1973)
- constitution of india, 482 (1950)
- indian penal code (1860)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 623/2020 CHANDER MOHAN ..... Petitioner
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ravinder Singh, Ms.Priyam Agarwal, Ms.Raveesha Gupta, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Vikram Jetly, CGSC with Mr.Nikhil Bhardwaj, Adv. for R-1-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
O R R% 20.01.2020
CMs 1705-06/2020
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
WP(C) 623/2020
This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order/letter dated 15.07.2019 issued by the respondents as also for the writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the maturity amount invested in 10 National Saving Certificates vide Registration No.DO-015011 to 015020.
The petitioner had earlier filed writ petition being WP(C) No.18486/2004 tilted Chander Mohan vs. UOI. The same was dismissed by this Court by its order dated 03.12.2004, on the ground of delay and laches. It was further held that on this ground no direction can be passed in the writ petition, however, the respondents were still directed to make an endeavour to locate the records and if the same are located, to process the claim of the petitioner. Three
months were granted to the respondents to communicate the result of such exercise to the petitioner. The petitioner claims that the petitioner did not receive any communication from the respondent thereafter, but kept representing to the respondents.
Eventually, by the Impugned orders/communications dated 05.06.2018 and 15.07.2019, the Department of Posts has reiterated that the records are not traceable.
In my view, these letters will not give fresh cause of action to the petitioner. In fact, even after dismissal of the earlier petition on the ground of delay and laches, there is absolutely no justification for the petitioner to have waited for another period of 16 years before filing the present petition.
The petition is therefore, dismissed.
JANUARY 20, 2020 RN
NAVIN CHAWLA, J