Point of Law :
Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party

ORDER :

The 1st petitioner claims that he was appointed as Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC) in Registration and Stamps Department vide proceedings, dated 02.12.1975. While so, vide letter, dated 15.11.1976, he was asked to appear before the District Collector for an oral test to be held on 16.11.1976. Thereafter, by proceedings, dated 03.12.1976, he was removed from service. The order of removal was challenged before the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal in R.P.No.152 of 1977. The Tribunal heard R.P.No.152 of 1977 along with R.P.No.230 of 1976 and batch on 14.11.1978 and issued directions to the respondents therein for reinstatement of the applicants therein.

2. The 1st petitioner alleges that those directions are yet to be complied. Subsequently, orders were passed on 09.10.2000 rejecting the request of the 1st petitioner for appointment as Junior Assistant. In this Writ Petition, the 1st petitioner challenges the said decision.

3. In other words, this Writ Petition is instituted challenging the order of rejection of claim of the 1st petitioner for appointment as Junior Assistant after more than 19 years. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, except narrating the factual background and earlier litigation, there is no pleading as to why the 1st petitioner could not institute O.A before the then Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of rejection. By the time the order was passed, the Hon’ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the Act’) was vested with exclusive jurisdiction to deal with service matters. As per Section 21 of the Act, the aggrieved person has to avail the remedy provided by Section 19 of the Act within one year from the date of decision, by which he is aggrieved. Thus, the petitioner had one year time from the date of rejection order, dated 09.10.2000 to institute an O.A challenging the said order. The petitioner did not avail the said remedy. The Tribunal is since abolished and an aggrieved person can institute Writ Petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. In the following decisions, Supreme Court succinctly put the scope of exercise of power of judicial review when there is delay in knocking the doors of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4.1. In State of Jammu and Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri and others, (2015) 15 SCC 602, the very issue of delay in instituting the writ petition after long lapse of time was considered. It was a case of dismissal and challenge was on the ground of violation of procedural safeguards incorporated into the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Disciplinary action resulted in imposing punishment of dismissal from service by order dated 06.09.1999. This was challenged by filing writ petition in the High Court on 18.02.2006. There was a delay of 7 years in filing writ petition.

4.2. The State Government raised objection on maintainability of writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. Without accepting this plea, punishment was set aside holding that Rule 34 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules was not complied. Even in appeal the Division Bench has not considered objection on delay in filing writ petition. Hence, appeal before Supreme Court. Supreme Court held that the delay and laches were not satisfactorily explained and, therefore, Writ Petition was not maintainable.

4.3. Supreme Court reviewed the precedent decisions and held:

"20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage from City and Industrial Development Corpn. v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala [City and Industrial Development Corpn. v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala, MANU/SC/8250/2008 : (2009) 1 SCC 168], wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus: (SCC p. 175, para 30)

"30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consi