Point of Law : Limitation - Delay/Latches - Doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity cannot be said to be a technical doctrine and has to be examined on peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Delay cannot be taken to be an absolute bar in such cases but the validity of defence for delay must be examined and if not satisfactorily explained a Court can decline to interfere and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Somadder, J.

1. The instant writ appeal arises in respect of a judgment and order dated 16th November, 2020, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP (C) No.113 of 2018 (Dr. Prasanna Kumar Agarwal v. State Bank of India & ors).

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has refused to entertain the writ petition primarily on the ground of inordinate delay and/or laches on the part of the writ petitioner.

3. The appellant before us is the writ petitioner.

4. Upon perusing the impugned judgment and order, we note that the learned Single Judge has taken pains to elaborately consider the issue with regard to inordinate delay and/or laches on the part of the writ petitioner (being appellant before us). Relevant portion of the impugned judgment and order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“19. On the question of delay and laches, the writ petitioner has sought to explain the delay in approaching this Court in para- 12 of the writ petition by maintaining that the delay was unintentional and was caused due to illness. A perusal of the medical certificates which has been annexed to support his contention which has staggered over the period from 2008 to 2017, however, do not adequately make out sufficient cause, inasmuch as, though a writ court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution undoubtedly, has a power to condone delay if the same is satisfactorily explained, will however not do so, if the person has slept over his rights before taking further legal action. The petitioner it is noted, had immediately on passing of the impugned order dated 01.02.2011, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which had rejected the same vide order dated 12.09.2011, but thereafter, did not take any steps to seek further legal remedy and it was only after approximately seven years that he came knocking on the doors of this Court again.

20. The doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity cannot be said to be a technical doctrine and has to be examined on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Delay cannot be taken to be an absolute bar in such cases but the validity of the defence for the delay must be examined and if not satisfactorily explained a Court can decline to interfere and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. As discussed, the rule of laches of delay cannot be given a rigid definition, and interference would be called upon only if compelling circumstances exist to warrant the same. In the case at hand, a factor that starkly stands out is the implied waiver, and acceptance of the penalty as imposed, by the petitioner, who chose to not pursue further remedy after the Appellate Authority had rejected his appeal by order dated 12.09.2011, and instead waited for seven long years before filing the instant writ application. Even, if delay is occasioned, the same should be within reasonable limit or time and justified as such. In the case of Veerayee Ammal vs. Seeni Ammal reported in (2002) 1 SCC 134, the Supreme Court at para-13 held as follows:

“13. The word “reasonable” has in law prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the person concerned is called upon to act reasonably knows or ought to know as to what was reasonable. It may be unreasonable to give an exact definition of the word “reasonable”. The reason varies in its conclusion according to idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and circumstances in which he thinks. The dictionary meaning of the “reasonable time” is to be so much time as is necessary, under the circumstances, to do conveniently what the contract or duty requires should be done in a particular case. In other words it means, as soon as circumstances permit. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s The Law Lexicon it is defined to mean:

“A reasonable time, looking at all the circumstances of the case; a reasonable time under ordinary circumstances; as soon as circumstances will permit; so much time as is necess