IMPORTANT POINT
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.

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, till date, no approval has been granted by the Department of Local Self Government for the reasons best known to them. In the meantime, several representations were submitted to the authorities seeking approval to deposit the balance auction amount. Counsel submits that respondents are sitting over the matter and till date, neither any representation nor approval has been granted to the petitioner, Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

2. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

3. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner participated in the auction proceeding conducted by the respondents in the year 1972. This fact is also not in dispute that 1/4th amount of the auction fee was deposited by the petitioner in the year 1972 and balance amount was not paid by him for a considerable time and after a lapse of eighteen years, he prepared a demand draft and deposited the same in the year 1990. However, the said demand draft of the petitioner was returned by the respondents by giving a reference of Rules of 1974. It appears that the petitioner raised certain objections in this regard that Rule 1974 are not applicable in the matter of the petitioner and considering the said objection of the petitioner, Chairman, Municipal Council, Bundi wrote a letter to the Director Local Self Government on 21.08.1995 seeking appropriate directions and approval, thereafter the matter remained pending and the same has not been decided till date, inspite of passing of more than 29 years. The petitioner was sitting over the matter and he has not challenged the action and non-action of the respondents before the Competent Court for redressal of his grievances except the steps taken by him by way of filing a representation. Mere filing of representation would not condone the lethargic attitude of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner was sleeping over his right for a long considerable time i.e. three decades.

4. Mere filing of representation could not be a sufficient explanation for delay in approaching the Court for grant of relief. This petition suffers from delay of 29 years, hence this Court deems it just and proper to refer the legal position on the settled proposition, on the point of delay and laches.

5. In the case of P.S.Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152 it was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor is it that there can never be a case where