Inordinate delay in filing petitions without reasonable explanation can lead to dismissal, emphasizing the importance of promptness in asserting rights under Articles 32 and 226.

JUDGMENT :

P. B. BAJANTHRI, J.

Ref: I.A. No. 4067 of 2018 in L.P.A. No.598 of 2018 and I.A. No. 02 of 2018 (4070 of 2018) in L.P.A. No. 602 of 2018

Heard I.A. No. 4067 of 2018 in L.P.A. No.598 of 2018 and I.A. No. 02 of 2018 (4070 of 2018) in L.P.A. No. 602 of 2018 for condonation of delay of about 03 years and 157 days insofar as filing of L.P.A. No. 598 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 602 of 2018 in which order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.10.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 18382 of 2009 and C.W.J.C. No. 17531 of 2009 are assailed. The aforesaid Interlocutory Applications are hopelessly drafted without indicating number of days of delay. In paragraph Nos. 01, 10 and 12 number of days have been left it blank. In fact, the office should have raised objection.

2. Be that as it may, sufficient cause has not been revealed so as to condone the enormous delay of 03 years and 157 days. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551, elaborately considered in respect of delay in filing litigations. In para -10 to 14, it is held as under:-

“10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care and caution. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching the writ court is explained which would appeal to the conscience of the court, in such circumstances it cannot be gainsaid by the contesting party that for all times to come the delay is not to be condoned. There may be myriad circumstances which gives rise to the invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction and it all depends on facts and circumstances of each case, same cannot be described in a straight jacket formula with mathematical precision. The ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ court depends upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the facts have travelled.

11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, 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 latches 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 latches, 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 latches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. This Court in the case of Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B., (2009) 1 SCC 768 has held to the following effect:

“56. We are unable to uphold the contention. It is no doubt true that there can be no waiver of fundamental right. But while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226, 227 or 136 of the Constitution, this Court takes into account certain factors and one of such considerations is delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. It is well settled that power to issue a writ is discretionary. One of the grounds for refusing reliefs under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches.

57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction. The underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been