Jurisdiction after state reorganisation: withdrawal with liberty and a later writ in the competent High Court were not barred by laches.

On the creation of Uttarakhand, the challenge to the Labour Court award at Dehradun fell within the Uttarakhand High Court's jurisdiction, and the pending writ in Allahabad ought to have been transferred under Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. The failure to transfer did not keep Allahabad jurisdiction alive, so withdrawal with liberty to approach the competent court was not unlawful. The fresh writ filed before the proper High Court after withdrawal could not be treated as barred by laches, because the challenge had already been pursued earlier and had remained pending in the wrong forum for years. The dismissal of the writ petition was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the grounds that the earlier withdrawal with liberty to approach the appropriate court was contrary to Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000, and that the fresh writ petition was barred by laches.

Analysis: On the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the cause challenging the award of the Labour Court, Dehradun fell within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Uttarakhand, and the pending writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad ought to have been transferred in terms of Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. The failure to transfer the matter did not preserve the Allahabad High Court's jurisdiction over the award. In that situation, the order permitting withdrawal with liberty to file before the appropriate court was not contrary to law. The subsequent filing before the competent High Court after withdrawal from Allahabad could not be treated as a delayed challenge, because the writ had already been pursued earlier and remained pending for years in the wrong forum. The observations made by the High Court of Uttarakhand on the judicial order of the Coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court were unwarranted.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the writ petition was unsustainable; the challenge could not be rejected either on the ground of want of jurisdiction arising from the earlier liberty order or on the ground of laches.

---