1. Petitioner seeks to quash an order via writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging determination that remains dated. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 123334
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Vishal Dhagat, J
Kamal Kale – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 42076 of 2026
Important Points
A writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches if challenged after an inordinate period, and the submission of repeated representations does not revive the cause of action or condone such delay.
Subject
Administrative Law - Service Matter
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - A challenge to an order after a delay of approximately 10 years, without sufficient justification or evidence of non-service of the order, is impermissible. (Para 4)
(B) Cause of Action - Repeated Representations - The filing of repeated representations to the authorities does not create a fresh cause of action to challenge an impugned order after an inordinate delay. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the ten-year delay in challenging the impugned order.
(B) Cause of Action - Repeated Representations - The filing of repeated representations to the authorities does not create a fresh cause of action to challenge an impugned order after an inordinate delay. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the ten-year delay in challenging the impugned order.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ishan Jatavedus Tignath
For the Respondents: Ved Prakash Tiwari
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ishan Jatavedus Tignath
For the Respondents: Ved Prakash Tiwari
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims non-service of the impugned order, despite repeated representations, while the court questions the justification for a decade-long delay in filing the writ petition. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The court observed that the petitioner failed to justify an unexplained ten-year delay and noted that filing repeated representations does not extend limitation or create new causes of action. (Para 4 )
4. A writ petition suffering from significant laches and unexplained delay cannot be entertained merely because the petitioner filed repeated administrative representations following the impugned order. (Para 4 )
5. The writ petition is dismissed due to unexplained delay and laches. (Para 5 )
6. Does the filing of repeated administrative representations against an order extend the period of limitation for filing a writ petition?
No. The filing of repeated representations does not create a fresh cause of action and cannot be used to justify delay or laches in challenging an impugned order. (Para 4 )
7. What is the consequence of failing to explain a significant delay in filing a writ petition?
If a petitioner is unable to justify the delay and laches in approaching the court, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. (Para 4 , 5 )
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging order dated 25/07/2016 filed as Annexure P-7. Alongwith relief of certiorari to quash said order, petitioner is also making a prayer to decide fresh representation of petitioner.
2. Heard counsel appearing for petitioner.
3. Petitioner is challenging impugned order dated 25/07/2016. During course of arguments it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner was never served with copy of order dated 25/07/2016. Counsel for petitioner also submitted that repeated representations were filed by petitioner, but petitioner was not informed about order dated 25/07/2016.
4. Petitioner is unable to inform the Court that how petitioner got copy of order dated 25/07/2016. Petitioner has not filed any document to show that petitioner has applied for said order under Right to Information Act, 2005 or has applied for copy of same. Petitioner is working as Clerk in same Department. Counsel for petitioner is unable to justify delay and laches in filing of Writ Petition. There is delay of about 10 years in challenging the impugned order. Filing of repeated representation will not give any cause of action to petitioner.
5. In view of same, Writ Petition is dismissed.
