The High Court, affirming settled precedent, dismissed an appeal challenging a 2000 Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) on grounds of inordinate and unexplained delay, noting that unconditional withdrawal of an earlier writ foreclosed further challenges. The Court emphasized that repeated petitions amount to abuse of process, reinforcing binding principles on delay, laches, and locus standi in public sector/industrial matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/1076/2025 of PETROFILS EX-EMPLOYEES ACTION COMMITTEE THROUGH ACTING PRESIDENT RAMESH JAICHARAN SHARMA Vs THE LIQUIDATOR, PETROFILS CO-OPERATIVE LTD. |
| CNR | GJHC240605892025 |
| Date of Registration | 12-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | 28-REJECTED @ ADM.STAGE |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA |
| Court | High Court of Gujarat |
| Bench | Division Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of Gujarat High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the order of the learned Single Judge |
| Type of Law | Public Law / Service Law / Limitation / Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the writ petition and subsequent appeal were barred by inordinate and unexplained delay, amounting to 25 years from the scheme’s promulgation. Once a writ petition with similar prayers was withdrawn unconditionally, filing another writ with identical prayers is impermissible. The Court further held that repeated litigation on the same issue after accepting the scheme constitutes abuse of process. The absence of concrete evidence as to locus standi (membership details) further undermined maintainability, though the petition was dismissed primarily on the ground of delay and laches. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Referred to the orders of the learned Single Judge in previous writ petitions (dated 05.10.2012, 14.08.2014, 05.08.2016; Official Liquidator decision of 03.07.2017). |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The judgment relied on settled principles of law on laches, delay, and maintainability; procedural bars arising from unconditional withdrawal and repeated petitions. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The Petrofils Ex-Employees Action Committee accepted a VSS in 2000, pursued various but similar writ petitions for arrears and challenging the scheme over many years, including after unconditional withdrawal and representation to liquidator. Current challenge was filed after 25 years, with intervening litigation and decisions. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court |
| Persuasive For | High Courts of other states; may be cited before Supreme Court for principles |
| Follows | Previous orders of the learned Single Judge dismissing similar writ petitions, specifically the order dated 24.06.2025 and prior procedural dismissals. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Unconditional withdrawal of a writ petition with the same prayers forecloses subsequent writs on identical grounds.
- Extraordinary and unexplained delay (25 years) in challenging schemes will result in outright dismissal; intermittent representations do not suffice to explain delay.
- Filing repeated writ petitions with substantively the same prayers amounts to abuse of the process.
- The absence of proof of locus standi (e.g., membership lists for representative action committees) undermines maintainability, though delay will be decisive.
- Once a benefit under a scheme is accepted—later challenges questioning the scheme’s validity cannot be entertained, even if filed by a representative committee.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court set out the procedural history, noting that after initial acceptance of the VSS in 2000, the petitioner and others filed multiple writ petitions, some of which were disposed of favorably for arrears, some withdrawn unconditionally, and others with repetitive prayers.
- The Court highlighted that the earlier withdrawal of the writ petition (Special Civil Application No.2010 of 2004) with identical reliefs meant subsequent similar petitions could not be permitted.
- The learned Single Judge’s detailed findings on delay (“delay is of around 25 years”; no sufficient cause) were expressly affirmed; references to procedural abuses and lack of valid explanation were adopted by the Division Bench.
- The Court also noted that the petitioner’s status as Acting President of an ex-employees committee was unsupported by a proper list of members, thus questioning locus standi.
- On the facts, the relief claimed related to a scheme promulgated and implemented decades earlier, and having accepted its benefits, the challenge now was time-barred and an abuse of process.
- The appeal provisions and invocation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act were not persuasive, as no evidence of timely action or outcome on the statutory appeal was produced.
- The judgment ultimately refused to condone the enormous delay, dismissed the appeal, and reaffirmed that repetitive litigation on settled matters will not be tolerated.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the writ petition on the ground of delay.
- Contended that the requirement to file an appeal against the Liquidator’s decision was erroneous and not intimated.
- Argued that there was sufficient cause for delay as explained in the writ petition.
- Urged that the petition should be decided on merits.
Respondent No.1 (Liquidator)
- Contended that the writ petition was frivolous and repetitive, as earlier writ petitions with the same prayers had been disposed of.
- Argued that the petitioner had already accepted benefits under the VSS in 2000, and subsequent challenge was impermissible.
- Urged that the appeal should not be entertained.
Factual Background
The Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) was introduced in December 2000 by the employer. The Action Committee, on behalf of ex-employees including the party-in-person, accepted the scheme. Multiple writ petitions were filed over the years for arrears and questioning the scheme’s terms. Earlier writ petitions were disposed of or withdrawn, some directing the petitioner to make representations to the Official Liquidator, which were rejected in 2017. The current challenge in 2025 sought to re-litigate the scheme’s validity, many years after its implementation and after previous similar litigation had been concluded or withdrawn.
Statutory Analysis
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 14 invoked by the petitioner unsuccessfully; the Court rejected the argument that delay could be condoned in these circumstances.
- Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act: Reference to Section 99 and Rule 31 regarding appeals before the Joint Secretary, Government of India; however, no outcome from the statutory appeal was produced, diminishing its relevance.
- Constitution of India: Article 14 was invoked by the petitioner to allege discrimination in the VSS; the Court did not find merit in this at such a belated stage after benefits were accepted.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion is recorded; both judges concurred in the reasoning and conclusions.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment reiterates the procedural bar on maintainability of repeated writ petitions with identical reliefs after unconditional withdrawal.
- Emphasizes the evidentiary requirement for representative capacity in public interest or action committee writ petitions (demanding concrete membership evidence).
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Division Bench reaffirmed established principles on delay/laches, repeated litigation, and maintainability of writs—no breaking precedent.
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – The decision turned on limitation and unexplained delay (laches) of over two decades.