The judgment establishes the principle that relief can be refused under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if there is undue delay and laches in filing the writ petition, and highlights the discretionary nature of the power to give relief under Article 226, emphasizing the importance of considering the delay and any explanation offered for it in deciding whether to issue the writ.

I.A. Ansari, J.

This appeal is preferred against the order, dated 15.7.2014, passed in C.W.J.C. No.15784 of 2006, whereby a learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ application filed by the appellant herein seeking directions to be issued to the respondents to make payment of salary for the period from 18.9.1990 to 24.1.1993. For dismissing the writ application, the learned single Judge took the view that the writ petitioner’s claim was essentially for realization of money, which is apparently barred by limitation inasmuch as the writ application was filed, as noted by the learned single Judge, after inordinate delay of 13 years with no plausible explanation having been offered for the delay. In the appeal too, the writ petitioner-appellant has not been able to provide any plausible, convincing or reasonable explanation for the delay.

2. Considering the fact that the appellant has assigned no convincing or plausible reason for filing the writ petition after inordinate delay of as many as 13 years, we do not find any reason to take a view contrary to what has been taken by the learned single Judge.

3. It is rudimentary that the Supreme Court has observed that relief can be refused by Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if there is undue delay and laches in filing writ petition. (See C. Jacob V. Director of Geology and Mining and Another (A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 264).

4. Considering the fact, if we may reiterate, that the appellant has assigned no convincing or plausible reason for filing the writ petition after inordinate delay of as many as 13 years, a suit for recovery of money has to be filed within three years from the date, when the cause of action arises. The extra-ordinary jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has to be exercised to enforce the law and not to defeat the same. In other words, the power, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has to be exercised to effectuate the rule of the law and not to abrogate or defeat. Even while acting in exercise of the said constitutional power, the High Court cannot ignore the law nor can it override the law. The power, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is conceived to serve the ends of law and not to transgress them. (See Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in (1997) 5 SCC 536).

5. Dealing with the question as to whether a time barred debt can be recovered by taking resort to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Constitution Bench, in State of Madhya Pradesh and Another v. Bhailal Bhai, reported in (1964) 6 SCR 261, observed that the remedy, which Article 226 of the Constitution of India provides, is not aimed at superseding completely the modes of obtaining relief by an action in a civil court or to deny the defence legitimately open in such actions. Pointed out the Constitution Bench in Bhailal Bhai (supra) that the power to give relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary power and this is, particularly, true in the case of issue of a writ of mandamus and while deciding as to whether the court shall exercise its discretion to issue the writ, one of the factors, which the court must take into account, is the delay made by the aggrieved party in seeking the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and what explanation, if any, has been offered for such a delay. Further points out, the Constitution Bench, in Bhailal Bhai (supra), that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the period of limitation for obtaining relief from the civil court is a matter of State's policy and may be, ordinarily, taken to be reasonable standard by which the delay in seeking the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be measured. In fact, the court may consider, in the light of Bhailal Bhai (supra), the delay as unreasonable even if the delay is for a period less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action; but where t