In a recent ruling by the High Court of Delhi, the Civil Writ Petition filed by Murari Lal Sharma against the Union of India has been dismissed. The petition raised crucial questions regarding jurisdiction and requested a significant cost, yet the court ruled otherwise. This case sheds light on the challenges faced within the legal system. Stay tuned for more insights on the dismissal of the petition.
Facts
- The Civil Writ Petition 1319/94 titled as Murari Lal Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. was filed before the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench.
- The petition was dismissed on February 22, 1995, citing lack of jurisdiction as the grounds for dismissal.
- The petitioner had requested a cost of INR 30,00,000 (Thirty lacs) for the 31 years of suffering endured by the petitioner’s family.
- The court did not award the requested cost to the petitioner.
- Petitioner filed a writ petition CWP 75/1996 titled Ex. Lance Nayak Murari Lal Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
- Resulted in filing O.A. 203/2014 before the Armed Force Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
- Central Government dismissed the Special Appeal of the petitioner under Section 165 of the Act of 1950 on January 30, 2017, without examining original records.
- O.A. (Appeal) 3330/2023 filed by the petitioner under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, was found to be barred by delay and laches.
- Petitioner withdrew the O.A. (Appeal) 3330/2023 with liberty to resort to an alternative remedy under Regulation 113 A of the Pension Regulation for the Army, 1961.
- Contempt petition 298 of 2009 filed by the petitioner in CWP 75/1996 was also withdrawn by resorting to an alternative remedy.
Arguments
- Mr. Oberoi’s plea is similar to what was argued before the AFT by the previous counsel of the petitioner.
- The argument is that the petitioner is a victim of wrongful conviction or fraud, making the O.A. fall within the limitation.
- The conscious wrong done to the petitioner supports the claim of the O.A. being within the realm of limitation.
Analysis
- Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 15 of the Act of 2007, despite the cause of action arising in 1992-1993.
- The petition was filed after a significant delay of 6952, 3683, and 165 days, as noted from CM NO. 27310/2024 seeking condonation of delay.
- The earlier litigations initiated by the petitioner, under Section 14 of the Act of 2007 (OA 945/ 2018 and RA 4/ 2023), were dismissed on merit.
- The appeal under Section 15 of the Act of 2007 would be subject to the principles of res judicata.
- The petitioner was discharged from service before completing the qualifying period of service of 15 years and is a non-pensioner.
- Regulation 595 of the Defence Service Regulations for Army 1987 states that records beyond 25 years are destroyed.
- The AFT dismissed the OA as it was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 22 of the Act of 2007.
Decision
- The prayer 10 was not found in the petition.
- The present petition and pending applications are dismissed for lack of merit.
Case Title: MURARI LAL SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (2024:DHC:3720-DB)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-6555/2024
