• Delay and laches  -  Grievance primarily on the basis of the adjudication made earlier by the High Court since affirmed by the Supreme court by Order dated 01.05.2009 -  Present writ petitions filed on  27.08.2009 dismissed  on the ground of delay and laches, the decision in the earlier proceedings notwithstanding -   High Court held passive conduct of the respondents herein tantamounted to sleeping over their rights for over two years to wake from their feigned slumber after the decision of the Supreme Court on 01.05.2009, to agitate their perceived rights -  That having regard as were, to the financial implications that would ensue in case the inordinately delayed claim of the  respondents is/was by entertained, thus adversely impacting upon public  exchequer, the learned Single Judge declined the relief sought for  - Upheld by Supreme court -  See no weighty or cogent reason for the respondents to wait till the earlier Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 01-05-2009 by this Court to embark upon their pursuit for redress in similar terms. - Upholding the view, held, that in our considered opinion therefore, the respondents were deliberately bidding time to seek judicial remedy in case their co-applicants under the scheme emerged successful in their adjudicative enterprise. Facts, It is not disputed that the writ petitioners in the earlier round of adjudication were applicants under SPINE alike the respondents herein. They being appalled by the delay in the grant of their receivables thereunder and being faced with the letter dated 05-02-2007 whereby pending receipt and scrutiny of the reports as called for, further sanction/disbursement of Grants-in-Aid under the said scheme was stopped, did promptly approach the Guwahati High Court with a batch of writ petitions in the year 2007 itself and as narrated hereinabove were favoured with a direction to the implementing authorities for consideration of their application for the investment subsidy in accordance with law without being influenced by the said letter. Admittedly, the respondents herein elected not to join them and instead, soon thereafter this Court affirmed the above verdict on 01-05-2009, staked their claim on 27-08-2009. There is evidently thus a time lag of more than two years by which the respondents challenge was delayed. (2016)3 PLRSC 573
  • Delay and Laches - Even if liberty was granted by this court to the petitioner to move a representation to the department for claiming the relief, the aforesaid delay can still not be ignored as the delay already occurred in availing the remedy will not be condoned merely by filing a subsequent representation or disposal thereof by the authorities - Hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and laches only - Constitution of India, Article 226. (174) PLR 


Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.