TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Division Bench upholds decision balancing individual grievances with public interest, emphasizing timely enforcement of claims.</h1> <h3>Ghulam Rasool Lone Versus State of J and K and Ors.</h3> Ghulam Rasool Lone Versus State of J and K and Ors. - 2009 (10) SCR 591, 2009 (15) SCC 321, 2009 (13) JT 422, 2009 (9) SCALE 644 Issues involved: Promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector illegally, relaxation of prescribed Rules, similar treatment for seven persons, delay/laches in seeking relief, jurisdiction of Division Bench in entertaining Letters Patent Appeal.Promotion to Sub-Inspector:- Hamiddulah Dar was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector illegally in 1987 by relaxing the prescribed Rules.- Abdul Rashid Rather, a Constable, filed a writ petition in 1987 seeking similar treatment, which was allowed by the High Court and upheld in subsequent appeals.- Four other individuals filed a writ petition in 1997 for promotion to Sub-Inspector, which was granted by the High Court and later by the Supreme Court.Delay/Laches and Jurisdiction:- Petitioner filed a writ petition in 2000 after the finality of Abdul Rashid Rather's case, questioning the delay/laches in granting him similar relief.- Division Bench questioned if the petitioner sought success based on another's case and opined that delay/laches prevented him from claiming similar relief.- The Division Bench's approach was challenged, questioning the interference by the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.Legal Principles and Discretionary Jurisdiction:- The Court emphasized the need to enforce equality in legality, not illegality, under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.- Various legal precedents highlighted the importance of timely enforcement of claims and the denial of relief based on delay and laches.- The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution may be denied due to delay/laches, ensuring equity is enforced within a reasonable time frame.Conclusion:- The Division Bench's decision was upheld, considering the petitioner's delay in seeking relief and the potential adverse impact on others' seniority and public funds.- The Court emphasized the need to balance individual grievances with public interest and general administration while granting equitable relief.- The judgment of the Division Bench was deemed neither arbitrary nor illegal, leading to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition summarily.
TaxTMI 