A writ petition may be dismissed if filed after an unreasonable delay without satisfactory explanation and involves disputed questions of fact not suitable for writ jurisdiction.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated

13.02.2026 passed by the first respondent and for a consequential direction to the fourth respondent University to conduct an enquiry and to direct return of the petitioner’s mobile phones or grant compensation.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she pursued B.Sc. Nursing in the first respondent College during the period from 2014 to 2018 and was residing in the hostel. According to the petitioner, during the years 2016 and 2017, two mobile phones belonging to her were seized by the hostel authorities of the said College. It is further stated that though she completed the course in the year 2018, the said mobile phones were not returned. It is her further case that despite repeated representations, no action was taken, and therefore she submitted representations in the year 2025, which ultimately led to filing of W.P. No.36025 of 2025. This Court, by order dated 19.09.2025, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders. Since no orders were passed, the petitioner filed contempt petition, pursuant to which, the impugned order dated 13.02.2026 came to be passed, stating that the mobile phones were not available and that the present management was not responsible. Challenging the order dated 13.02.2026 issued by the 1^st respondent, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a student of the first respondent College and that her mobile phones viz., Micro Max and Samsung were seized while she was in the hostel. Even after completion of the course in the year 2018, the said mobile phones were not returned. He vehemently contended that the action of the respondents in retaining the mobile phones is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel further submitted that only after initiation of contempt proceedings, the impugned order has been passed, which is unsustainable in law, and therefore appropriate directions may be issued.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent though filed vakalath, today, on instructions, he submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact. It is the specific stand of the first respondent that no mobile phone was seized from the petitioner. He further submitted that the alleged incident pertains to the years 2016 and 2017, whereas earlier writ petition was filed only in the year 2025, after an inordinate delay of about seven years. In view of the above, he prayed for dismissal of this writ petition on the ground of delay as well as disputed questions of fact involved.

5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner pursued her course in the first respondent College between 2014 and 2018. On a bare perusal of records, it reveals that the alleged seizure of mobile phones were taken place during the years 2016 and 2017. However, it is the strong contention of the petitioner that though she completed her course in the year 2018, her mobile phones were not returned by the first respondent College. However, no legal action was initiated by the petitioner immediately thereafter. Only after a lapse of nearly seven years from the date of completion of the course, earlier Writ Petition viz., 36025 of

2025 was filed by the petitioner.

7. The primary relief sought by the petitioner is for return of the mobile phones allegedly seized by the first respondent College. However, the seizure of mobile phones pertaining to the petitioner was seriously disputed by the respondents. In the absence of any documentary proof or material to establish