A subsequent writ reiterating relief already addressed is not maintainable after prolonged delay.

The petitioner’s late husband, Anil Kumar Jaiswal, had sought resolution of a dispute under Clause 24 of his agreement in an application dated 23 October 2012.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed that the competent authority decide that application if no decision had yet been taken; the petition was disposed of on 10 April 2013.

The agreement was terminated on 2 May 2013, and the husband died in 2016.

His widow later sought a direction for consideration and communication of the decision on the 2012 application, stating that it was relevant to her defence in recovery proceedings and that she had obtained documents through the RTI process.

The State opposed the petition as repetitive and barred by delay and laches.

1. Whether the petitioner’s request for a decision on the 2012 application was maintainable when substantially similar relief had already been considered and addressed in the earlier writ petition.

2. Whether the petition was liable to be dismissed for delay and laches.

The Court applied the principles of maintainability and delay and laches in writ proceedings.

It treated the earlier order—which directed the competent authority to decide the application if no decision had been taken—as having already addressed the substantial relief now sought.

The dispute arose under Clause 24 of the agreement, but the Court did not decide the underlying contractual claim or cite any statute or precedent.

The Court found that the relief sought in the present petition was almost identical to the relief sought in the earlier writ petition, which had been disposed of with a direction concerning the same application.

It therefore declined to grant the further request that any resulting decision be communicated to the petitioner, reasoning that the substantial relief had already been granted.

The Court also accepted that the petition suffered from delay and laches, noting the earlier proceedings and the time elapsed before the widow filed the present petition.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit; no further direction was issued to communicate a decision on the 2012 application.