Back
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, BHUWAN GOYAL
Rajendra Gupta, S/o. Chandmal Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing, Secretariat, Jaipur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard on admission.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the learned Single Judge committed patent illegality in dismissing writ petition on the ground of delay and laches without taking into consideration the fact that the case of the appellant had remained pending consideration with the respondents ever since 1995 and even in the year 2010, the appellant was given a letter to vacate the plot, in 2013-14, he was informed that his case was pending. Thereafter, repeated representations were made by the appellant, but when nothing happened, the appellant had to file the writ petition.
3. Present case is a classic example of delay and laches. It is not in dispute that the auction was held way back in the year 1972 and even according to the appellant, in 1974, he had deposited only part of the bid amount. It appears that almost after 20 years, an officer of the Local Body wrote a letter to the Director, Local Self Government, Rajasthan on 21.08.1995 in the stale matter. The appellant even at that stage did not do anything and slept over the matter. On 26.07.2010, a letter was written to the appellant to vacate the plot. He again did not take any remedy. It a
Stale claims cannot be revived through representations; timely action is essential in legal proceedings.
Point of Law : Doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in ....
The doctrine of delay and laches bars stale claims in writ petitions, emphasizing timely action for relief.
Inordinate delay in seeking relief can bar a petition under Article 226, emphasizing the principle of laches and the need for timely action by litigants.
Unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights is an important factor in deciding whether or not to exercise writ jurisdiction.
While exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution; delay defeats equity and delay cannot be brushed aside without any plausible explanation.
The delay of 46 years in approaching the court without a satisfactory explanation constitutes delay and laches, barring the appellant's writ petition seeking an alternative shop.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
