Back
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Rajendra Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
The petitioner participated in the auction proceedings conducted by the respondents in the year 1972 and he deposited 1/4th of the auction amount on the spot on 11.12.1972 as per the terms and conditions of the auction notice. The remaining amount was not deposited by the petitioner for a considerable time, thereafter in the year 1990 he wanted to deposit the balance amount by way of demand draft dated 17.01.1990. The said demand draft of the petitioner was returned by the respondents vide letter dated 31.03.1990, by giving reference of Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules 1974 (for short, 'the Rules of 1974'). The petitioner submitted objections to the said letter dated 31.03.1990 by way of making a representation to the respondents indicating there in that Rules of 1974 are not applicable in the present matter as the auction pertains to the year 1972. Counsel submits that vide letter dated 21.08.1995, the Chairman Nagar Palika, Bundi written a letter to the Director, Local Self Government for seeking approval to permit the petitioner to deposit the balance amount. As per the case of the petitioner, inspite of passing of considerable time, t
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.
The principle that delay and laches may result in the refusal of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The doctrine of delay and laches bars stale claims in writ petitions, emphasizing timely action for relief.
Approaching the court within a reasonable time is crucial, and delay and laches may lead to the dismissal of petitions.
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.
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 ....
when the fraud is alleged the same is required to be pleaded and established by leading evidence. Mere allegation that there was a fraud is not sufficient.
Unexplained delay in seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may lead to the dismissal of the petition.
It is well-settled that under Article 226, power of High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary.
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
