Article 226 | Delay Defeats Equity, HC Should Dismiss Writ Petition If Petitioner Is Guilty Of Delay Or Laches : Supreme Court

Observing delay and laches as prominent factors while deciding petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court held that the High Court ought not to grant extraordinary relief to a petitioner who approaches the writ court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time.

Reversing the High Court's finding which had allowed the writ petition despite there being an unexplained delay in preferring the writ petition, the Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar underscored the factor of delay and laches which need to be borne in mind by the High Court's while exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

“we are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or laches is one of the factors which should be borne in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action.”, the judgment authored by Justice Aravind Kumar said.

The court was hearing the appeal preferred by the successful LPG distributor who had challenged the High Court's Division Bench order whereby the High Court has allowed the intra-court appeal of the unsuccessful bidder/respondent no.1, after 4 (four) years by setting aside the decision of the BPCL to allow the appellant to commence the construction of godown and showroom on the alternate land offered by the BPCL, stating that the appellant was allotted encumbered land to construct the godown and showroom.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the Division Bench was casual in accepting the plea of the writ petitioner without examining the aspect of delay and giving a complete go-by for laches exhibited on the part of the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 while preferring intra-court appeal.

On the other hand, respondent no.1 supported the decision of the High Court to allow its writ petition by stating that the blatant violation of the guidelines would go to the root of the matter and the inherent defect cannot be allowed to be rectified, that too by relying upon an amendment to the guidelines which has come into force after the advertisement in question.

Supreme Court's Observation

Accepting the appellant's contention, the court held that there was a delay and laches on the part of respondent no.1 in preferring the writ petition before the High Court despite knowing the allotment of distributorship in favour of the appellant in the year 2014, the respondent no.1 only challenged the same in the year 2017 when the alternate land was offered by the BPCL to the appellant.

“factual aspect would reflect that the writ petitioner was aware of all the developments including that of the allotment of distributorship having been made in favour of the appellant herein way back in 2014 yet did not challenge and only on acceptance of the alternate land offered by the appellant in March, 2017 and permitting him to construct the godown and the showroom. Same was challenged in the year 2017 and thereby the writ petitioner had allowed his right if at all if any to be drifted away or in other words acquiesced in the acts of the Corporation and as such on this short ground itself the appellant has to succeed.”, the court observed.

Indolent Litigant Cannot Be Allowed To Revive Dead Cause Of Action

The court reasoned out that when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been invoked and even submitting of memorials would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a natural death.

“In such circumstances on the ground of delay and laches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed or the applicant ought to be non-suited. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will have to necessarily take into consideration the delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court.”, the court said.

Conclusion

“Having regard to the afore-stated principles of law enunciated herein above, when we turn our attention to facts on hand, it would not detain us for too long for accepting the plea of the appellant in affirming the order of the Learned Single Judge and dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.”, the court concluded.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the order of the High Court's division bench was set aside.

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pijush K. Roy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pritthish Roy, Adv. Ms. Kakali Roy, Adv. Mr. Asit Roy, Adv. Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia, AOR

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Zoheb Hossain, AOR Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Mr. Sandeep Narain, Adv. Ms. Nivedita Nair, Adv.

Case Title: MRINMOY MAITY VERSUS CHHANDA KOLEY & ORS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Click here to read/download the judgment