Delay in filing a writ appeal must be sufficiently justified; lack of justification can lead to dismissal of the appeal.

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra-Court Appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act 1958 assails the judgment dated 01.02.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.2753 of 2022 wherein the writ petition filed by the appellant has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge.

2. Heard C.M. Appln. No.1 of 2025 for condonation of delay.

The appeal has been filed with a delay of 1017 days.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after passing of the impugned judgment dated 01.02.2023, the certified copy of the judgment was delivered on 03.02.2023. The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 03.03.2023. The reason assigned for the delay is that the appellant was laid up at that time and was undergoing treatment at Urology Department of the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram with effect from 22.03.2023 onwards. Thereafter the appellant was discharged from the hospital after having undergone surgery on 24.04.2023 and was discharged on 29.04.2023. Again, the appellant was admitted on 09.07.2024. He was discharged in July 2024.

Therefore, the delay occurred.

4. On perusal of the application, it is seen that there is no explanation for the delay as to what prevented the appellant from filing the Writ Appeal after July 2024. The Writ Appeal was ultimately filed on 15.12.2025, that too after the lapse of more than 18 months, since July 2024. No explanation has been put forth by the appellant for the aforesaid delay.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of the delay aspect has rendered several judgments which are reproduced below:

5.1 The learned Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corpon. Ltd. Vs. K. Thangappan and another reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322 has held as under :

6. 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. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports . Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.

5.2 The Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Ram Mohan Raja Vs. State of T.N. and others Reported in (2007) 9 SCC 78 has held as under :

11. So far as the question of delay is concerned, no hard- and fast rule can be laid down and it will depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, the facts stare at the face of it that on 8-10-1996 an order was passed by the Collector in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court, rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for consideration of the grant of mining lease. The writ petitioner sat tight over the matter and did not challenge the same up to 2003. This on the face of it appears to be very serious. A person who can sit tight for such a long time for no justifiable reason, cannot be given any benefit.

5.3 The Supreme Court in the case of Nadia Distt. Primary School Council Vs. Sristidhar Biswas and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 779 has held as under :

11. In the present case, the panel was prepared in 1980 and the petitioners approached the court in 1989 after the decision in Dibakar Pal. Such persons should not be given any benefit by the court when they allowed more than nine years to elapse. Delay is very significant in matters of granting relief and courts cannot come to the rescue of the persons who are not