There is no specific limitation period for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the general rule of laches must be applied based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to condone the delay of 423 days in filing the present Restoration Petition against order dated 24.01.2020 in W.P.No.30954 of 2014.)

This petition has been filed with the prayer to condone the delay of 423 days in filing the restoration petition against the order dated 24.01.2020 in W.P.No.30954 of 2014.

2. By the order dated 24.01.2020, a learned Judge of this Court has passed the following order dismissing the writ petition for non-prosecution.

“The matter is listed under the caption “for dismissal” today. There is no representation on the side of the petitioner. Even on the earlier occasion i.e., on 07.01.2020, there was no representation on the side of the petitioner. It can now be inferred that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

3. In order to restore the writ petition on file, the petitioner has filed a restoration petition in W.M.P.Sr.No.44502 of 2021 in W.P.No. 30954 of 2014.

4. Along with the said application for restoration, the petitioner also filed the present petition seeking to condone the delay of 423 days in filing the restoration petition, that is how this miscellaneous petition has been filed.

5. When this miscellaneous petition was moved, this Court, after having gone through the facts of the case, was of the prima facie view that, whether any separate petition is required seeking to condone the delay of whatever days in filing the restoration petition against any order of dismissal of the writ petition for want of prosecution, that was the doubt arisen.

6. In order to delve into the said question, Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the writ petition was placed for hearing before the learned Judge on 07.01.2020, on that date since there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, it was again posted on 24.01.2020 under the caption “for dismissal”. Even on that date, since there was no representation on the part of the petitioner, the Court has taken the view that, the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.

7. In this context, by relying upon the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of this miscellaneous petition, the learned counsel would contend that, the learned counsel, who was counsel on record previously to the petitioner, seems to have not appeared on 24.01.2020, with the result, the writ petition came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the petitioner had obtained the case related papers and documents from the erstwhile Advocate on record and handed over the papers to the present counsel through whom the present miscellaneous petition is filed.

8. He has also submitted that, due to the Covid-19 pandemic situation, there was a delay on the part of the previous counsel on record in handing over the related case papers, there arose a delay in filing the miscellaneous application seeking for restoration of the writ petition. Therefore, in order to condone the said delay, this petition was filed to condone the delay of 423 days in filing the restoration petition.

9. Though the said submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the doubt arisen as stated supra, as to whether such a condone delay petition was required to be filed, the learned counsel would further contend that, as per the Rule framed by the High Court regulating the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there is no such limitation prescribed and moreover the law of limitation will not be applicable to the writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and if at all there is any inordinate delay for approaching the Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction