Delay and laches bar relief in writ jurisdiction as per established legal principles.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

Date : 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against judgment dated 02.04.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.15678 of 2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was initially appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department (hereinafter referred to as“PHED”) and was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant vide memo dated 21.03.2012, to which he submitted his explanation. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was issued on 13.09.2012. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 12.03.2014, holding the charges framed against the appellant proved. A second show-cause notice was issued on 07.04.2014, followed by the order of punishment dated 19.07.2016. The appellant also filed a representation regarding payment of outstanding salary, which was disposed of on 20.09.2016.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground of delay, without examining the merits of the case, thereby causing serious prejudice to the appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant had already preferred a statutory appeal against the order of punishment and had not received any information regarding its disposal. According to the appellant, the delay stood sufficiently explained and ought not to have been treated as fatal to the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State submits that the appellant approached the writ Court after an inordinate and unexplained delay, and failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction at such a belated stage. It is thus submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised judicial discretion in dismissing the writ petition.

6. The limited issue for consideration before this Court is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, and whether such dismissal calls for any interference in intra-

court appellate jurisdiction.

7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the learned Single Judge, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has categorically held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. The learned Single Judge has recorded a clear finding that the petitioner approached this Court after an unexplained delay of more than seven years, without assigning any reason whatsoever. The relevant observation of the learned Single Judge reads as under:

“7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs, this Court finds that the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches alone inasmuch as the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly after an unexplained delay of more than 7 years, especially in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments, as referred to by the Ld. counsel for the Respondent-State and recorded herein above in the preceding paragraphs, as also considering the maxim-“equity aids the vigilant and not tho